The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a contempt petition filed under Sections 10 and 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, as withdrawn by the complainants who challenged orders of the Anchoring Bench.
The petition was dismissed as withdrawn. Permission to file a fresh contempt petition was denied.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL, 2021
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
AND
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
CCC No.100124/2020 (CIVIL)
BETWEEN
…COMPLAINANTS
(BY SRI.RAJESH B RAJANAL, ADVOCATE)
AND
: 2 :
SAI MANDIR, NEAR HUBBALLI COURT COMPLEX (OLD), HUBBALLI 580 029, DIST: DHARWAD.
: 3 :
PLOT NO.83,84, SHIVAGANGA LAYOUT, MADAHUR COLONY, KUSUGAL ROAD, KESHWAPUR, HUBBALLI. 580023, DIST: DHARWAD
: 4 :
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, MEMBER, SHIRDI SAI MANDIR, R/O 243, NEAR CHIDAMBAR MATH, RENUKA NAGAR, GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI 580 030, DIST: DHARWAD.
…ACCUSED
(BY SRI.AYUSH G BHAT, ADV. FOR A1, 3 TO 6, A8, A10 TO 15, SRI.S.S.NIRANJAN, ADVOCATE FOR A2 AND A9, SRI.RAJASHEKHAR A ARANI, ADVOCATE FOR A7)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 10 AND 11 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 READ WITH ARTICLE 215 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 PRAYING THIS HON’BLE COURT TO PUNISH THE ACCUSED BY COMMITTING THEM TO IMPRISONMENT ON SUCH TERMS AS THE HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT, BY INITIATING PROPER ACTION AGAINST THE ACCUSED FOR CONTEMPT OF THIS HON’BLE COURT’S ORDER TO MAINTAIN STATUS QUO ON AS-IS-WHERE-IS CONDITION, PASSED IN RFA NO.100547/2019 ON 16.12.2019 AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR J., PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
: 5 :
ORDER
The counsel for the complainants files a memo stating that this contempt petition is not pressed. Memo is placed on record. The petition is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The complainants have sought liberty to file a fresh petition. In this regard, it is to be stated that permission or liberty to file a fresh contempt petition cannot be granted, because the order dated 16.12.2019 shows that it was passed in a regular first appeal granting an order of injunction. If injunction order granted in the first appeal is violated, then an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2 of CPC is to be filed in the same first appeal.
Office is hereby directed to return the certified copies.
Sd/JUDGE
Sd/JUDGE
sh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether liberty to file a fresh contempt petition can be granted when violating an injunction order from a first appeal.
Whether an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2 of CPC is the proper remedy for violating an injunction order in a first appeal.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Deepak Jadhav
Govind Pandurang Munavalli
Venkatrao Kulkarni
Appasaheb A. Chavan
Govind K. Hotkar
Mahadev Maasal
Sreenivas Harish Kumar
E.S. Indiresh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
