In this contempt petition filed in the Karnataka High Court, the High Court found that the prayer sought by the complainant in the contempt petition had become infructuous as the accused filed the High Court writ petition unilaterally. Consequently, the High Court dropped the contempt proceedings.
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.1735 OF 2019 (CIVIL)
BETWEEN:
DR. MADHUSUDHAN TOKLA S/O SIDDHAIAH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS RESIDING AT #220, 7TH CROSS 9TH MAIN, TATA NAGAR SAHAKAR NAGAR POST KODOGEHALLI BENGALURU-92. ... COMPLAINANT (BY SRI. H. MALATESH, ADVOCATE) AND:
SRI. BASAVARAJU S/O NOT KNOWN AGED MAJOR ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER C-9, SUB-DIVISION BESCOM, KODIGEHALLI BENGALURU-92. ... ACCUSED (BY SRI. H.V.DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE)
THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 PRAYING TO HOLD THE
-: 2 :-
GUILTY OF THE OFFENCE OF CONTEMPT PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 FOR DISOBEYING THE ORDER PASSED IN W.P.NO.34039/2019 DATED 09.09.2019 MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A AND PUNISH THE ACCUSED AS PER LAW, AND GRANT SUCH OTHER AND FURTHER RELIEFS AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.
THIS CCC COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ARAVIND KUMAR . J., PASSED THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R
Learned advocate appearing for complainant
submits that prayer sought for in this contempt petition
has become infructuous.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/JUDGE
Prs*
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Aravind Kumar
Suraj Govindaraj
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court