Disposed¶¶25

D.Subbamma v. Ketan Garg

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Sections 10 to 12

Andhra Pradesh HC21 Jan 2026CC/1803/2021

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

D. Subbamma v. Ketan Garg (Sub Collector, Rajampeta Sub Division) and M. Lakshmi Narayana (Tahsildar, Brahmamgari Matam Mandal), YSR Kadapa District — Contempt Case No. 1803 of 2021, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati (Justice D. Ramesh), closed 23.01.2026 — alleged violation of status quo interim order dated 21.09.2020 in W.P. No.16821 of 2020 (Rakesh Kumar, J.) — contempt denied in response; petitioner's counsel conceded; case closed without adjudication, no costs.

What did the court decide?

Contempt Case closed (no finding of contempt); no order as to costs; miscellaneous applications pending, if any, stand closed. ¶¶25

D.Subbamma Vs Ketan Garg — Contempt of Court | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

APHC010387772021

¶2

[3208]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

FRIDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH

¶8

CONTEMPT CASE NO: 1803/2021

¶9

Between:

¶10

D.SUBBAMMA, W/O SUBBARAYUDU, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/O LAKSHMI BALAJI NAGAR VILLAGE, REKULAKUNTA PANCHAYAT, BRAHMAMGARI MATTAM MANDAL, Y.S.R KADAPA DISTRICT.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

KETAN GARG, WOKING AS SUB COLLECTOR, RAJAMPETA SUB DIVISION, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT.

¶14

SRI M LAKSHMI NARAYANA, WORKING AS TAHSILDAR, BRAHMAMGARI MATAM MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT.

¶15

...CONTEMNOR(S):

¶16

Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act 1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit file herein the High Court may be pleased to to punish the respondents/contemnors herein under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act for wilfully, wantonly and disobediently not implementing the Interim Order dated 21.09.2020 in W.P.No.16821 of 2020 passed by His Lordship's RAKESH KUMAR Garu and pass

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶18

1.DODDAKA HARSHA VARDHAN

¶19

Counsel for the Contemnor(S):

¶20

1.P SUBASH

¶21

The Court made the following:

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

This Contempt Case is filed alleging violation of the interim order dated 21.09.2020 passed by this Court in W.P. No.16821 of 2020, whereby the parties were directed to maintain status quo. After issuance of notice, the contemnors filed their response specifically stating that they have not interfered in the matter.

¶24