In Brief
A company director challenged for violating a court order to pay admitted licence fees and maintenance charges within one month was charged with contempt. The Supreme Court found that because an execution petition was already pending before a competent court to enforce the same claim against him, he could not be said to have intentionally violated the order. The Court held that contempt is fundamentally a matter between the Court and the contemnor, and where a regular remedy exists, contempt proceedings should not proceed. The contempt petition was dismissed and the respondent released from custody."
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.