https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=25688 The court found the first respondent guilty of contempt for disobeying the court's order by opening sealed premises without permission. Allegations of unauthorized removal of valuables were left for decision in the partition suit. Actions under section 132 were deemed legal due to ongoing search and time extension approval. The first and second respondents were held responsible for costs and remuneration of the Advocate-Commissioner, while the third respondent was exonerated. Application was ordered with costs against the first and second respondents but dismissed against the third respondent. en-us Fri, 26 Sep 1986 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 30 Jan 2010 11:59:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=25688 The court found the first respondent guilty of contempt for disobeying the court's order by opening sealed premises without permission. Allegations of unauthorized removal of valuables were left for decision in the partition suit. Actions under section 132 were deemed legal due to ongoing search and time extension approval. The first and second respondents were held responsible for costs and remuneration of the Advocate-Commissioner, while the third respondent was exonerated. Application was ordered with costs against the first and second respondents but dismissed against the third respondent. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 26 Sep 1986 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=25688