https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303335 The Supreme Court found the respondents in contempt for violating an order restraining further allotment of flats. The court interpreted "allotment" to include possession and registration, not just agreements. The respondents' actions post-order were deemed a clear violation, with their defense of misunderstanding rejected. The court noted their attempts to transfer the case and non-cooperation, showing disrespect. A one-month imprisonment and Rs. 2,000 fine were imposed on the second respondent, with additional imprisonment for default and Rs. 5,000 costs to be paid to the petitioners. The second respondent was taken into custody for imprisonment. en-us Thu, 04 Feb 1993 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 15 Jul 2022 10:27:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303335 The Supreme Court found the respondents in contempt for violating an order restraining further allotment of flats. The court interpreted "allotment" to include possession and registration, not just agreements. The respondents' actions post-order were deemed a clear violation, with their defense of misunderstanding rejected. The court noted their attempts to transfer the case and non-cooperation, showing disrespect. A one-month imprisonment and Rs. 2,000 fine were imposed on the second respondent, with additional imprisonment for default and Rs. 5,000 costs to be paid to the petitioners. The second respondent was taken into custody for imprisonment. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 04 Feb 1993 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303335