<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1996 (9) TMI 648 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286094</link>
    <description>Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 permits an appeal only from an order punishing contempt; an order finding no wilful disobedience and declining to punish the alleged contemners is not appealable under that provision. Contempt jurisdiction is confined to testing wilful breach of an existing court order and cannot be used to re-open the merits of a seniority list or to issue a fresh mandatory direction on that dispute. If a later seniority list is said to be inconsistent with earlier directions, the aggrieved party must challenge it in appropriate proceedings. The appeals were dismissed, with liberty to pursue the seniority challenge in the proper forum.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 11 Sep 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 12 Feb 2020 10:22:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=603636" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (9) TMI 648 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286094</link>
      <description>Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 permits an appeal only from an order punishing contempt; an order finding no wilful disobedience and declining to punish the alleged contemners is not appealable under that provision. Contempt jurisdiction is confined to testing wilful breach of an existing court order and cannot be used to re-open the merits of a seniority list or to issue a fresh mandatory direction on that dispute. If a later seniority list is said to be inconsistent with earlier directions, the aggrieved party must challenge it in appropriate proceedings. The appeals were dismissed, with liberty to pursue the seniority challenge in the proper forum.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Sep 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286094</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>