https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307831 Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 was treated as territorially confined to India, so protection against coercive execution did not extend to steps taken against assets outside India. The earlier order was read as containing observations rather than an express injunction, and prior BIFR permission was therefore not required for foreign execution steps. On contempt, the court held that a clear, willful breach of a binding direction must be proved beyond reasonable doubt; a bona fide interpretative dispute and the absence of proof of deliberate disobedience meant contempt was not made out. en-us Wed, 29 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 11 May 2023 16:45:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307831 Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 was treated as territorially confined to India, so protection against coercive execution did not extend to steps taken against assets outside India. The earlier order was read as containing observations rather than an express injunction, and prior BIFR permission was therefore not required for foreign execution steps. On contempt, the court held that a clear, willful breach of a binding direction must be proved beyond reasonable doubt; a bona fide interpretative dispute and the absence of proof of deliberate disobedience meant contempt was not made out. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 29 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307831