Dismissed

Sri T R Lokesh v. Sri N Manjunath Prasad

Karnataka HC13 Nov 2020CCC/476/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a CCC filed for contempt under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the court held that the order of 1st July 2020 directed only 50% honorarium payment from April 2019 onwards, with no direction for prior arrears. Finding substantial compliance, the court discharged the notice and disposed of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Notice to first respondent-accused discharged; contempt petition disposed of.

Sri T R Lokesh Vs Sri N Manjunath… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2020

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶7

C.C.C. NO. 476 OF 2020 (CIVIL)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI T.R.LOKESH S/O SRI T.N.RAMAMURTHY AGED 54 YEARS WORKING AS CHIEF INSTRUCTOR/ PRINCIPAL, B.B.M.P. ELECTRICAL WIREMEN TRAINING CENTRE, No.15/1, CORPORATION BUILDING WARD No.43, QUEENS ROAD BENGALURU-560 051. … COMPLAINANT (BY SHRI NAGENDRA KUMAR a/w SHRI BHAT GANAPATHY NARAYAN, ADVOCATES)

¶10

AND:

¶11

SRI N.MANJUNATH PRASAD FATHER’S NAME NOT KNOWN AGED 50 YEARS THE COMMISSIONER BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE B.B.M.P., N.R.SQUARE HUDSON CIRCLE BENGALURU-560 002. 2. SRI LINGAMURTHY FATHER’S NAME NOT KNOWN

¶12

¶13

AGED 45 YEARS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (ADMINISTRATION), BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE B.B.M.P., N.R.SQUARE HUDSON CIRCLE BENGALURU-560 002.

¶14

… ACCUSED

¶15

(BY SHRI H.V.DEVENDRAPPAADVOCATE FOR A-1)

¶16

¶17

THIS C.C.C. IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 PRAYING TO INITIATE PROSECUTION AGAINST THE ACCUSED FOR WILLFUL DISOBEDIENCE OF THE DIRECTION AND ORDER DATED 1.7.2020 ISSUED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT IN W.P. No.6875/2000 AND SENTENCE HIM FOR IMPRISONMENT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY, AND ETC.

¶18

THIS C.C.C. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The learned counsel appearing for the complainant does not dispute that in terms of the order dated 1^st July, 2020 in W.P. No.6875 of 2020, 50% of the Honorarium has been paid for the months of July, August, September and October 2020.

¶21

The grievance of the learned counsel appearing for the complainant is that Honorarium has not been paid from April 2019 onwards.

¶22

¶23

However, we find that in the order dated 1^st July, 2020, there is no direction to pay Honorarium for the period prior to the passing of the said order. It is for the complainant-petitioner to adopt an appropriate remedy for recovery of the arrears of Honorarium for the period prior to 1^st July, 2020. Therefore, there is a substantial compliance with the order dated 1^st July, 2020.

¶24

No case is made out to initiate action under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The notice issued to the first respondent-accused is discharged. The contempt petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶25

Sd/CHIEF JUSTICE

¶26

Sd/JUDGE

¶27

vgh*

Sri T R Lokesh v. Sri N Manjunath Prasad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri T R Lokesh v. Sri N Manjunath Prasad

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

M/S Gomatesh Granites Vs State of Karnataka

Ramesh Naik.L Vs State of Karnataka

Bhusan Malleshi Patil Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri. Venkataramana Swamy College Vs Dr. P. Subrahmanya Yadapadithaya

M/S Karnataka State Muslim Federation Vs Sri Ajay Seth

Sri Veerabhadra temple Vs the Deputy Commissioner