https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397313 Contempt was not established against the respondent bank because its refusal to permit operation of the account was driven by existing freezing and provisional attachment proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, together with a lien by the Income Tax Department. The court treated the bank's request for clarification and its cautious approach as consistent with compliance, not wilful disobedience, particularly where directions had been issued regarding transfer of attached funds and a further provisional attachment order had also been passed. No deliberate disregard of the earlier order was proved, and the petition failed. en-us Thu, 13 Aug 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 14 Aug 2020 09:42:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397313 Contempt was not established against the respondent bank because its refusal to permit operation of the account was driven by existing freezing and provisional attachment proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, together with a lien by the Income Tax Department. The court treated the bank's request for clarification and its cautious approach as consistent with compliance, not wilful disobedience, particularly where directions had been issued regarding transfer of attached funds and a further provisional attachment order had also been passed. No deliberate disregard of the earlier order was proved, and the petition failed. Case-Laws Money Laundering Thu, 13 Aug 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397313