https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17889 A bank manager was not held in civil contempt because the order directing release of funds did not specify the mode of payment, and his refusal to pay in cash was based on perceived statutory restrictions and an RBI circular rather than wilful disobedience. Criminal contempt was also not established, as the facts did not show any act scandalising the court, lowering its authority, or obstructing the administration of justice. The unqualified apology was accepted, and the respondent was discharged from the proceedings. en-us Wed, 04 Sep 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 25 Sep 2009 14:02:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17889 A bank manager was not held in civil contempt because the order directing release of funds did not specify the mode of payment, and his refusal to pay in cash was based on perceived statutory restrictions and an RBI circular rather than wilful disobedience. Criminal contempt was also not established, as the facts did not show any act scandalising the court, lowering its authority, or obstructing the administration of justice. The unqualified apology was accepted, and the respondent was discharged from the proceedings. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 04 Sep 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17889