https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297240 Contempt proceedings require proof of a deliberate breach of a restraint order beyond reasonable doubt because the standard is quasi-criminal. On the record, the alleged withdrawal from the Swiss bank account was not established, as the evidence showed the account had been closed and the balance had become nil before the prohibitory order. Mere suspicion, affidavit inconsistencies, or unclear correspondence were insufficient to prove contempt. An earlier finding of guilt was also recalled because it rested on a mistaken factual premise that the respondent had not denied withdrawal; the record showed an express denial. The adverse contempt finding was therefore set aside. en-us Tue, 02 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 24 Aug 2021 10:58:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297240 Contempt proceedings require proof of a deliberate breach of a restraint order beyond reasonable doubt because the standard is quasi-criminal. On the record, the alleged withdrawal from the Swiss bank account was not established, as the evidence showed the account had been closed and the balance had become nil before the prohibitory order. Mere suspicion, affidavit inconsistencies, or unclear correspondence were insufficient to prove contempt. An earlier finding of guilt was also recalled because it rested on a mistaken factual premise that the respondent had not denied withdrawal; the record showed an express denial. The adverse contempt finding was therefore set aside. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 02 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297240