#interim order

The Delhi High Court struck down an Appellate Tribunal interim order that sought to channel frozen proceeds of crime to settle liabilities of another company, holding such diversion beyond the scope of Section 42 of the PMLA. This bars authorities from using seized assets to satisfy third-party debts, affecting enforcement actions against money-laundering suspects.

The Karnataka High Court dismissed a contempt petition, ruling that disobedience of an interim order does not constitute willful contempt unless the accused had actual knowledge of the order. The court emphasized that mere filing of a charge sheet without awareness of the stay order does not attract contempt liability, reinforcing procedural safeguards for public officials.

ITAT Mumbai ruled that Assessing Officers must stay proceedings and comply with interim High Court directions under Section 10(23C)(via) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal set aside an assessment order for ignoring judicial stay, reinforcing that interim orders bind tax authorities until final disposal of writ petitions, ensuring natural justice for charitable trusts.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has ruled that withdrawing a writ petition automatically nullifies any interim stay on election results, obligating authorities to declare the outcomes of completed elections. Fresh polls are permissible only for vacancies arising after declaration, ensuring electoral finality and preventing procedural manipulation under the Societies Registration Act, 2001.

The Allahabad High Court ruled that teachers employed by U.P. Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam are entitled to retire at 62 years, not 60, reinforcing earlier judgments. The court directed settlement of retiral benefits, emphasizing the binding nature of the precedent on similar cases.

The Supreme Court ruled that a non-party directly affected by civil consequences of an interim order in a writ petition under Article 226 must be impleaded to ensure procedural fairness. This holding reinforces the principle that affected third parties cannot be denied a hearing merely because they were not original parties to the proceedings.

Madras High Court holds that civil contempt is established when authorities disburse funds despite clear interim orders, regardless of statutory records or bona fide belief.

Madhya Pradesh High Court reaffirms that interim orders prohibit state authorities from taking coercive action pending hearing, even against heritage structures.