Tarafatullah Mandal And Ors. vs S.N. Maitra And Ors. on 21 December, 1951
18. The counsel for the appellant stated that as the order stated to have been disobeyed by the appellant was mandatory in nature it was incumbent to serve the order on the appellant and as that was not done the contempt proceedings ought to have been dismissed. Even if it was true that the counsel for the Department was present at the time when the order had been made the obedience of a mandatory order could be required by an officer if he would flout the compliance of the same despite service. The decisions relied on are elaborated in Tarafatullah v. S. N. Maitra AIR 1952 Calcutta 919 :(1953 Cri LJ 136) under (b)
"When an injunction is granted against a corporation, which afterwards does or permits an act in breach of the injunction, there is a wilful disobedience of the order and it will be no answer for the corporation to say that the act was done or the omission allowed to occur unintentionally, or through carelessness, or through dereliction of duty on the part of servants of the corporation. The same principle, would apply in the case of a Government, or a State, but before an individual officer of the Government can be held to be liable, it must be established that he was the person in charge of the subject-matter to which the injunction or order, alleged to have been disobeyed, related and unless that is established, no case against an individual officer can succeed."