https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313704 Civil contempt requires wilful, conscious and deliberate disobedience, proved beyond reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court held that contempt jurisdiction cannot be used to decide disputed factual questions or to substitute for execution or other available remedies. Because the High Court had entered into the genuineness of documents and other contested facts, despite those issues being outside contempt proceedings, and because no material showed knowledge, intention, or deliberate non-compliance by the appellants, the finding of contempt could not stand. Vicarious liability was also impermissible without proof of deliberate conduct. The contempt order was set aside and the appeal succeeded. en-us Tue, 26 Oct 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 29 Apr 2024 21:29:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313704 Civil contempt requires wilful, conscious and deliberate disobedience, proved beyond reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court held that contempt jurisdiction cannot be used to decide disputed factual questions or to substitute for execution or other available remedies. Because the High Court had entered into the genuineness of documents and other contested facts, despite those issues being outside contempt proceedings, and because no material showed knowledge, intention, or deliberate non-compliance by the appellants, the finding of contempt could not stand. Vicarious liability was also impermissible without proof of deliberate conduct. The contempt order was set aside and the appeal succeeded. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 26 Oct 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313704