Disposed

The Agricultural Produce v. Sri Chandramouli K M

Karnataka HC2 Mar 2020CCC/253/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In contempt proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, the High Court of Karnataka held that since review petitions challenging the impugned order were pending before the single judge, continuing the contempt proceedings would not subserve justice. The court dropped the proceedings with liberty to revive them if the review petitions are dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Contempt proceedings dropped with liberty to revive them if review petitions are dismissed.

The Agricultural Produce Vs Sri Chandramouli K M — Contempt of Court | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 02^ND DAY OF MARCH, 2020

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR C.C.C. No.253/2019 (CIVIL)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE (APMC) GONIKOPPAL, KODAGU DISTRICT KARNATAKA STATE – 571 213 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY H.C.M. RANI D/O CHANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS.

¶9

... COMPLAINANT

¶10

(BY SRI. NANDA KISHORE, ADVOCATE-ABSENT)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SRI. CHANDRAMOULI K.M SECRETARY THE GRAM PANCHAYATH GONIKOPPAL, KODAGU DISTRICT – 571 213 KARNATAKA STATE.

¶13

…RESPONDENT/ACCUSED

¶14

(BY SMT. BINU M, ADVOCATE-ABSENT)

¶15

THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 R/W ARTICLE 251 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO TAKE COGNIZANCE OF THE CONTEMPT COMMITTED BY THE

¶16

¶17

ACCUSED FOR DELIBERATE AND WILLFUL DIOBEDIENCE OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT IN W.P. NO.41801/2013 DATED: 30.05.2018 AND PUNISH HIM FOR THE SAME.

¶18

THIS CCC COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ARAVIND KUMAR J, MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

This contempt proceedings have been initiated by the petitioner in W.P.No.41801/2013 (APMC) alleging that respondent has willfully disobeyed the order dated 30.05.2018 passed in the said writ petition.

¶21

Objections filed to the contempt petition disclose that tenants of the subject premises have filed review petitions before the learned single judge in R.P.No.235/2018 and R.P.No.287/2018 and same is being heard by the learned Single Judge.

¶22

Since none have appeared on behalf of parties, we have verified from the website of this Court and found that review petitions as stated in the paragraph 2 of the statement of objections have infact filed by the tenants and it was listed before the learned single judge on 18.12.2019 for hearing of interlocutory

¶23

¶24

application and matter has been adjourned. In that view of the matter, continuation of the present proceedings would not sub-serve the ends of justice and accordingly contempt petitions are dropped with liberty to the complainant to revive the contempt proceedings in the event of review petitions being dismissed.

¶25

SD/JUDGE SD/JUDGE

¶26

The Agricultural Produce v. Sri Chandramouli K M

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Agricultural Produce v. Sri Chandramouli K M

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Commissioner of Service Tax Vs Sobha Developers Ltd.

Sri G N Prakash Vs Sri. Vijaya Bhaskar

Jai Bheema Rao and Babu Jagajeevanaram Sneha Seva Samithi (R) Vs Sri G N Shivamurthy

Smt. P. Gayathri Vs Dr. N. Manjula