Dismissed

Mr S. R. Ravi v. Mrs. Priyanka Mary Francis

Karnataka HC21 Nov 2019CCC/905/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge rejected a Civil Courts Case invoking contempt proceedings. The court held that the respondent had complied with the prima facie direction to consider representations and convey a decision via communication dated 25.09.2017. Any disputes regarding the quantum of payment were deemed quarrelsome and not grounds for contempt.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition rejected and proceedings dropped.

Mr S. R. Ravi Vs Mrs. Priyanka Mary Francis — Contempt of Court | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

-: 1 :-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶8

C.C.C. NO.905 OF 2019 (CIVIL)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

MR. S.R. RAVI AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS S/O M.L.SINGEGOWDA HAVING HIS OFFICE AT NO.18/5, 1^ST MAIN RATHNA, VYALIKAVAL BANGALORE-560003 ... COMPLAINANT

¶11

(BY SRI. ARJUN SARATHY .V, ADVOCATE ON BEHALF OF SRI. SUNDARA RAMAN.M.V, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

MRS. PRIYANKA MARY FRANCIS MAJOR, FATHERS NAME UNKNOWN DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF TOURISM GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA HAVING OFFICE AT NO.49 KHANIJA BHAVAN, 2^ND FLOOR RACE COURSE ROAD BANGALORE-560001 ... ACCUSED (BY SRI. GURURAJ JOSHI, ADVOCATE)

¶14

-: 2 :-

¶15

THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURT, PRAYING TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS OF CONTEMPT AGAINST THE ACCUSED FOR BLATANT AND WILLFUL DISOBEDIENCE OF THE ORDER DATED 22.09.2016 PASSED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT IN W.P.NO.9885/2016 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A.

¶16

THIS CCC COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ARAVIND KUMAR, J., PASSED THE FOLLOWING:-

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

Complainant who is petitioner in

¶19

W.P.No.9885/2016 has alleged that directions issued by

¶20

this Court by learned Single Judge in the aforesaid Writ Petition has not been complied and there being willful disobedience on the part of respondent, they should be proceeded with for committing contempt. Direction issued in the aforesaid Writ Petition is to the following effect:

¶21

“….On receipt of the same, the second respondent shall secure all materials, consider the representation and the bills submitted by the petitioner and take a decision and convey the decision taken to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, but

¶22

-: 3 :-

¶23

not later than six weeks from the date on which the representation is submitted.”

¶24

A plain reading of above direction would

¶25

clearly indicate that a contention came to be raised in the Writ Petition by respondent Nos.1 and 2 that funds have to be provided by respondent Nos.3 and 4 for the project carried out by petitioner and in the event respondent No.2 arriving at a conclusion that amounts is due and liable to be paid to petitioner, respondent No.3 should take necessary steps to seek for payment of the amount through respondent Nos.3 and 4 and if such request from respondent No.2 is made, steps should be taken by respondent Nos.3 and 4 to release the amount, if same is certified by respondent No.2. To enable respondent No.2 to undertake such exercise, petitioner was granted liberty of filing fresh representation along with copy of the order and enclosing copies of bills before respondent No.2. On

¶26

-: 4 :-

¶27

receipt of same, respondent No.2 was thereafter required to secure all such materials, it may desire to do so and then consider the representation and bills submitted by petitioner and thereafter take a decision by conveying it to petitioner. On account of noncompliance of said direction, petitioner-complainant herein had approached this Court by filing CCC No.847/2017 and on communication dated 25.09.2017 issued to petitioner by respondent No.2 being placed on record, said contempt proceedings came to be dropped by observing that complainant would be at liberty to seek redressal before appropriate forum, if he is aggrieved by the quantum of payment made.

¶28

This contempt proceedings itself is not maintainable though learned advocate appearing for complainant-petitioner would contend that a direction issued in Paragraph 6 of the order passed by the learned Single Judge has not been taken into

¶29

-: 5 :-

¶30

consideration by respondent No.2. We are not inclined to accept such contention inasmuch as only positive direction issued to respondent No.2 is to consider the representation and take a decision by communicating the same to petitioner, which has already been done by respondent No.2. Infact, communication dated 25.09.2017 has not been placed on record along with these contempt proceedings and during the course of submission made, same has been furnished, which has been perused by us, which would clearly indicate that respondent No.4 in the Writ Petition by communication dated 08.09.2017 has already paid certain amounts to petitioner. If at all, petitioner is aggrieved by the determination of quantum of amount paid to him by respondent No.4 or certain amount has not been paid by respondent No.3 which is said to be due to petitioner, it is always open to petitioner to take appropriate steps in that regard by challenging the communication dated 08.09.2017 in the manner known

¶31

-: 6 :-

¶32

to law. Hence, we do not find any good ground to entertain this contempt petition. Hence, it is rejected and contempt proceedings are dropped.

¶33

Sd/JUDGE

¶34

Sd/JUDGE

¶35

Prs*

Mr S. R. Ravi v. Mrs. Priyanka Mary Francis

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr S. R. Ravi v. Mrs. Priyanka Mary Francis

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Maini Precision Products Pvt. Ltd., Vs Commissioner of Central Excise

M/S Maini Precision Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise

The Pr. Commissioner of Vs M/S Altimetrik India Pvt. Ltd.

Smt Sharadamma Vs Sri Vijay Bhaskar

Pr Commissioner of Income Tax - 4 Vs M/S Majestic Developers

Giriraj K N Vs Sri. Anjum Parveez