9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (11) TMI 151 - HC - Central ExciseContempt petition - recovery of dues - during the pendency of writ petition, the respondents have sold the property - Held that - it is clear that contemnors have not been restrained from selling the attached property. - Even otherwise, if the property under attachment is sold, the rights of the applicants stand protected. No ground for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondents is made out. - Decided against Revenue.
Issues: Contempt proceedings for willful disobedience of interim stay order
Analysis: The judgment pertains to an application seeking contempt proceedings against the respondents for willfully disobeying an interim stay order issued by the High Court. The order in question, dated 15.02.2008, was passed in a Civil Writ Petition. The petitioner, facing financial difficulties due to a fire incident disrupting business operations and record loss, was directed by the Commissioner of Central Excise to deposit a certain amount. Despite seeking modification and citing financial crisis as a reason for non-compliance, the petitioner was unable to deposit the required sum. The High Court, acknowledging the petitioner's efforts to restart the business, allowed a month for the deposit of a reduced amount, subject to the petition's outcome, to avoid coercive recovery actions. The main contention of the petitioner was that the respondents had sold the attached property during the pendency of the writ petition. However, the court noted that the order did not explicitly restrain the respondents from selling the property. Additionally, the judgment highlighted that even if the attached property were sold, the rights of the applicants would remain protected. Consequently, the court found no valid grounds for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondents and dismissed the contempt petition. The decision underscores the importance of clear and unambiguous court orders to avoid misunderstandings and potential contempt issues arising from differing interpretations of the directives provided.
|
