https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=419772 Contempt requires strict proof of wilful disobedience of an explicit and definite order. On the shareholding issue, no material showed any change in shareholding despite the status quo direction, so no contempt was established. On the project property issue, the status quo order did not prohibit all construction activity, and the applicant failed to prove transfer of ownership or any wilful breach through continuation of development work or engagement of a development agency. The tribunal therefore found no contempt on either allegation and held that mere continuation of development activity, without breach of a specific restraint, is insufficient. en-us Mon, 07 Mar 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 21 Mar 2022 08:13:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=419772 Contempt requires strict proof of wilful disobedience of an explicit and definite order. On the shareholding issue, no material showed any change in shareholding despite the status quo direction, so no contempt was established. On the project property issue, the status quo order did not prohibit all construction activity, and the applicant failed to prove transfer of ownership or any wilful breach through continuation of development work or engagement of a development agency. The tribunal therefore found no contempt on either allegation and held that mere continuation of development activity, without breach of a specific restraint, is insufficient. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Mon, 07 Mar 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=419772