https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311710 Contempt jurisdiction should not ordinarily be used to enforce payment under a disputed money decree where execution is available as an effective legal remedy. The Court noted that liability was itself contested on the ground that the claimants lacked title and the decree was alleged to be a nullity, so payment could not be compelled through contempt coercion. In the absence of wilful or deliberate disobedience, contempt proceedings were unwarranted. The Court also observed that an order refusing to discharge the Rule in contempt proceedings is appealable. The contempt proceedings were therefore not maintainable on the facts, and the Rule was set aside. en-us Wed, 19 Apr 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 09 Jan 2024 16:17:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311710 Contempt jurisdiction should not ordinarily be used to enforce payment under a disputed money decree where execution is available as an effective legal remedy. The Court noted that liability was itself contested on the ground that the claimants lacked title and the decree was alleged to be a nullity, so payment could not be compelled through contempt coercion. In the absence of wilful or deliberate disobedience, contempt proceedings were unwarranted. The Court also observed that an order refusing to discharge the Rule in contempt proceedings is appealable. The contempt proceedings were therefore not maintainable on the facts, and the Rule was set aside. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 19 Apr 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311710