The High Court dropped contempt proceedings initiated against respondents for allegedly willfully disobeying an order to deposit rent. The court observed that the rent had been deposited by the respondents in the trial court, negating the charge of non-compliance.
Contempt proceedings stood dropped.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
AND
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
C.C.C. No.1160/2019 (CIVIL)
BETWEEN:
SMT. P.S. JAYAMMA W/O LAKSHMAIAH Y AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/S NO.124, (NORTHERN PORTION) 1ST BLOCK, EAST JAYANAGAR BYRASANDRA BENGALURU – 560 011.
... COMPLAINANT
(BY SRI. ABHINAY Y.T, ADVOCATE)
AND:
2
(BY SRI. V. ANAND, ADVOCATE FOR A-1 TO A-6)
THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, PRAYING TO PUNISH THE ACCUSED HEREIN FOR WILLFULLY DISOBEYING THE ORDER DATED: 5TH JANUARY 2018 AND THE UNDERTAKING GIVEN ON 22.11.2018 BY THE ACCUSED IN RFA 1148/2009 BY THIS HOB’BLE COURT.
THIS CCC COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ARAVIND KUMAR J, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
Appellant in RFA No.1148/2009 has initiated
this contempt proceedings alleging that respondents have willfully disobeyed order passed on 05.01.2018 and 22.11.2018 in said appeal.
“Order dated 05.01.2018.
Heard the appellant’s counsel and the respondents’ counsel.
The learned counsel for respondents has filed a list of tenants from whom respondent Nos.2(a) to (c), 3 and 4 are collecting rents. They have given names of five tenants and it is stated that total amount of Rs.20,050/- is being collected by these respondents from the tenants every month.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned decree directs the respondents to deposit the rent in the Court till final decree is drawn.
The respondents’ counsel submits that the amount so far collected by them towards rent has not been deposited in accordance with the decree. Therefore, the
4
respondents’ counsel now submits that if 15 days’ time is given, the entire rent as per the directions given in the decree would be deposited before the trial court. Therefore, 15 days’ time is granted for depositing the entire amount collected by them so far.”
Order dated 22.11.2018.
“The respondents’ counsel submits that they have to pay taxes and make other statutory payments from the rents collected and after deducting the same they are ready to deposit the rents. Therefore, two weeks time is granted to the respondents’ counsel for filing a memo showing the details of statutory payments to be made.”
3. Having heard Sri Abhinay Y.T., learned
Advocate appearing for complainant and Sri V.Anand, learned Advocate appearing for respondents-accused Nos.1 to 6 and on perusal of the entire case papers, we notice that complainant had filed a suit in O.S.No.3553/2004 for declaration and partition claiming 1/5th share in the suit schedule properties. Learned trial Judge, by judgment and decree dated 03.09.2009 decreed the suit in part granting 1/5th share to plaintiff in item No.1 only and rejecting his
5
claim insofar as other properties are concerned. There was also a decree for payment of entire amount of rent collected by respondents therein namely, respondents-2(a) to 2(c), 3 & 4. In the appeal filed by the complainant in RFA No.1148/2019, an order came to be passed on 05.01.2018 as extracted herein above whereunder learned Advocate appearing for respondents therein had submitted that if 15 days time was granted, entire rent as per the decree would be deposited before trial court. Accordingly, 15 days time came to be granted by learned Single Judge. Subsequently, on 08.03.2018 when I.A.No.1/2018 came up for consideration, appellant had sought for a direction to respondents to deposit the rent and said application came to be dismissed in the light of order made on 05.01.2018. As already noticed herein above, while dismissing I.A.No.1/2018 it was recorded that respondents had undertaken to deposit the amount within one week. Subsequently, on 22.11.2018 it was submitted by learned Advocate appearing for respondents that taxes and other
6
statutory payments will have to be paid from the rents collected and after deducting same, they are ready to deposit the rents. Hence, two weeks time came to be granted to respondents to file a memo showing the details of statutory payments to be made. Accordingly, a memo came to be filed on 05.12.2018 indicating thereunder that rents received for the period May 2009 to November, 2018, June, 2009 to January, 2017 @ Rs.12,950/- per month and for the period from February, 2017 to November, 2018 @ Rs.20,050/per month by making deductions in a sum of Rs.9,82,635/- was deposited.
7
the cost of repetition that amounts collected by way of rents as per the decree has been deposited on 30.08.2019 as per the details mentioned in the memo dated 30.08.2019 filed in O.S.No.3553/2004. What was required to be deposited by respondents was rents outstanding as on 05.01.2008 and what has been deposited before the trial court is rents calculated upto November, 2018. If at all complainant is aggrieved by the amount quantified by the respondents not being in consonance with the decree passed, it would be open to the appellant to file appropriate application in the pending RFA No.1148/2009. As such, we are of the considered view continuation of present proceedings would not serve any fruitful purpose nor can it be held that respondents have willfully disobeyed the undertaking given by them before this court. Even otherwise, amount which has been quantified under the decree being executable, complainant would be at liberty to work out her remedy in accordance with law,
8
With the aforesaid observations, contempt
proceedings stands dropped.
SD/-
JUDGE
SD/JUDGE
*sp
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the respondents have willfully disobeyed the order and undertaking to deposit rent.
Smt. Anuradha
Smt. V. Leelavathi
Sri. P.V. Mahesh Babu
Smt. Sheela
Smt. P.S. Manjula
Aravind Kumar
Suraj Govindaraj
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
