In Brief
Ramasamy, a property purchaser, was convicted of contempt of court for violating an interim injunction restraining property alienation. The Supreme Court allowed his appeal and set aside the conviction. The Court held that punishment for contempt requires clear evidence of willful disobedience and knowledge of the court order. Since no evidence showed the appellant knew of the injunction, and the vendor (second respondent) was acquitted on the same grounds, the appellant could not be treated worse. The decree holder itself had obtained another sale deed and taken possession, making the appellant's conviction inequitable. His advanced age was also considered as a mitigating factor in the decision.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.