- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Vicarious liability cannot be applied to a case of contempt: Supreme Court
Vicarious liability cannot be applied to a case of contempt: Supreme Court Civil contempt means willful disobedience of a decision of the court The Supreme Court has said that indirect liability, as a principle cannot be applied to a case of contempt. The court is not expected to conduct an inquiry and go beyond the judgment that was allegedly violated. The apex court's judgment came...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
Vicarious liability cannot be applied to a case of contempt: Supreme Court
Civil contempt means willful disobedience of a decision of the court
The Supreme Court has said that indirect liability, as a principle cannot be applied to a case of contempt. The court is not expected to conduct an inquiry and go beyond the judgment that was allegedly violated.
The apex court's judgment came on an appeal filed against the order of the Guwahati High Court where the appellants were guilty of willful disobedience of the order passed by the court. This was in respect to the levy made while upholding Section 21 of the Assam Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1972.
The bench of Justice S K Kaul and Justice M M Sundresh observed, "There is no material to either establish their knowledge on the action of their subordinates or that they acted in collusion with each other."
The court said that merely because subordinate officials acted in disregard of an order passed by the court, liability could not be fastened on higher officials in the absence of knowledge. There was no material to establish their knowledge on the action of the employees. The appellants did not violate the directives of the court.
It was a deliberate, conscious, and intentional act. What is required is proof beyond reasonable doubt since the proceedings were quasi-criminal in nature, the top court ruled.