<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1968 (4) TMI 96 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465740</link>
    <description>A charge of contempt for breaching a prohibitory stay order is not established unless knowledge of the order is proved beyond reasonable doubt and the disobedience is shown to be wilful. On the facts stated, the material placed before the Nyaya Panchayat was incomplete and unreliable, consisting of an unsupported application without a properly sworn affidavit, the date of the stay order, or a copy of the telegram. In that situation, the Panches were entitled to question the authenticity and sufficiency of the information, and the absence of recorded reasons for not adjourning the matter did not by itself prove contumacious conduct. Wilful disobedience was therefore not made out.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 24 Apr 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2026 15:56:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=876504" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1968 (4) TMI 96 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465740</link>
      <description>A charge of contempt for breaching a prohibitory stay order is not established unless knowledge of the order is proved beyond reasonable doubt and the disobedience is shown to be wilful. On the facts stated, the material placed before the Nyaya Panchayat was incomplete and unreliable, consisting of an unsupported application without a properly sworn affidavit, the date of the stay order, or a copy of the telegram. In that situation, the Panches were entitled to question the authenticity and sufficiency of the information, and the absence of recorded reasons for not adjourning the matter did not by itself prove contumacious conduct. Wilful disobedience was therefore not made out.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 24 Apr 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465740</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>