https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=407284 Contempt liability was assessed on whether a party wilfully disobeyed an earlier order by continuing as director/chairman and attending board meetings, and whether other directors could be liable for aiding and abetting. The court treated the underlying directions as requiring compliance with prior committee decisions and restricting office-holding based on estate-linked shares, but found the materials admitted competing interpretations and did not show a clear, explicit command breached deliberately. Applying the requirement of wilful disobedience proved beyond reasonable doubt, it held that contempt was not established against the alleged contemnor, and the derivative allegations against the directors also failed. en-us Thu, 22 Apr 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 05 May 2021 08:38:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=407284 Contempt liability was assessed on whether a party wilfully disobeyed an earlier order by continuing as director/chairman and attending board meetings, and whether other directors could be liable for aiding and abetting. The court treated the underlying directions as requiring compliance with prior committee decisions and restricting office-holding based on estate-linked shares, but found the materials admitted competing interpretations and did not show a clear, explicit command breached deliberately. Applying the requirement of wilful disobedience proved beyond reasonable doubt, it held that contempt was not established against the alleged contemnor, and the derivative allegations against the directors also failed. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 22 Apr 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=407284