https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764373 A contempt application was treated as timely because it was filed within one year of the impugned order, so the limitation objection failed and merits could be examined. On the substantive issue, civil contempt was not made out because wilful disobedience requires a clear, deliberate breach of a specific judicial command; admission of a fresh section 7 application for a different project under the insolvency framework was a statutory act within independent jurisdiction and was not barred by the earlier appellate order. The grievance regarding unpaid CIRP costs did not convert that admission into contempt. The application was rejected in entirety and no contempt proceedings were directed. en-us Mon, 06 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 09 Jan 2025 07:46:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764373 A contempt application was treated as timely because it was filed within one year of the impugned order, so the limitation objection failed and merits could be examined. On the substantive issue, civil contempt was not made out because wilful disobedience requires a clear, deliberate breach of a specific judicial command; admission of a fresh section 7 application for a different project under the insolvency framework was a statutory act within independent jurisdiction and was not barred by the earlier appellate order. The grievance regarding unpaid CIRP costs did not convert that admission into contempt. The application was rejected in entirety and no contempt proceedings were directed. Case-Laws IBC Mon, 06 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764373