Dismissed

Sri a Ramasanjeevaiah v. sri shambe gowda

Karnataka HC19 Apr 2021CCC/130/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bench dealt with a contempt petition alleging willful disobedience of a Single Judge order. Despite the accused offering an unauthorized opinion on property possession, further punishment was not deemed warranted. Costs of Rs. 25,000 were imposed, and the contempt petition was disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Accused to pay costs of Rs. 25,000; notice of contempt discharged.

Sri a Ramasanjeevaiah Vs sri shambe gowda — Contempt of Court | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2021

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

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

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶6

CCC NO.130/2021 (CIVIL)

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

SRI A RAMASANJEEVAIAH S/O LATE ARCHAK ANNAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/O CHIKKAJALA VILLAGE AND POST CHIKKAJALA HOBLI YELAHANKA TALUK BENGALURU-562157 …COMPLAINANT

¶9

(BY SRI SUBRAHMANYA P D, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND

¶11

SRI SHAMBE GOWDA PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER VILLAGE PANCHAYATH CHIKKAJALA CHIKKAJALA POST CHIKKAJALA HOBLI YELAHANKA TALUK BENGALURU NORTH-562157 …ACCUSED

¶12

(BY SRI M S PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR ACCUSED; SRI D S JAYARAJ, ADVOCATE ON I.A.NO.1/2021)

¶13

THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 R/W ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO INITIATE/TAKE UP CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED HEREIN FOR THE WILLFUL DISOBEDIENCE OF

¶14

¶15

THE ORDER MADE IN W.P.NO.32588/2018 (LB-RES) DATED 05.03.2020 PASSED BY THIS COURT AND ALSO TO PUNISH THE ACCUSED HEREIN SUITABLY AFTER HOLDING TRIAL IN THE SAID REGARD.

¶16

THIS CCC COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the complainant. The order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 5^th March 2020 of which breach is alleged reads thus:

¶19

"2. In terms of Annexure-J Panchayath Development Officer -respondent No.4 has not taken any action despite final decree of partition in favour of the petitioner read with Executive Officer's Direction vide Annexure-F dated 24.08.2013. Therefore, respondent No.4 is hereby directed to consider the petitioner's grievance with reference to Annexures-F, J read with final decree passed in OS.No.198/2003 and subject to OS No.456/2010. Such action shall be taken within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and communicate the decision to the petitioner."

¶20

A copy of the said order along with an application

¶21

was submitted by the complainant to the accused who was the fourth respondent in the writ petition on 6^th May 2020. The present contempt petition is filed on 3^rd February 20201. Notice was issued to the accused on 9^th February 2021. An affidavit was filed

¶22

¶23

by the accused which is referred in the order of this Court dated 17^th March 2021. In the said affidavit, there was no assurance given by the accused to comply with the order of the Court. Thereafter, a statement of objections was filed by the accused on 24^th March 2021. As per the order dated 5^th March 2020 passed by the learned Single Judge, the accused was required to communicate the decision to the complainant within eight weeks from 6^th May 2020. The statement of objections filed on 24^th March 2021 reveals that even as on that date, a decision was not taken by the accused. On the contrary, in paragraph 15 of the statement of objections, the accused stated that the complainant is not in possession of the property and the claim of the complainant is liable to be rejected. The order dated 25^th March 2021 passed in this contempt petition is material. Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the said order read thus:

¶24

"The accused is present through Video Conferencing. His advocate tenders the statement of objections. The direction issued in paragraph 2 of the order dated 5^th March, 2020 is a very limited direction to the accused to consider the complainant's grievance with reference to Annexures-F and J read with the final decree passed in O.S. No.198 of 2003 and subject to O.S. No.456 of 2010. In terms of the said order, the accused has not even passed an order.

¶25

¶26

Prima facie, it appears to us that instead of complying with the order, the accused has engineered intervention by a private party in this contempt petition. It is very clear from the stand taken in the statement of objections and especially paragraph 15 that the accused has gone to the extent of deciding the dispute regarding possession which he is not competent to do." (underline supplied)

¶27

Now, on the last date, a memo was filed by the accused producing on record a copy of the endorsement dated 26^th March 2021 issued by the accused. The learned counsel appearing for the complainant submits that the said endorsement shows that the accused has not understood the purport of the order passed by this Court. Nevertheless, a decision has been taken by the accused on 26^th March 2021 on the application made by the complainant. The remedy of the complainant is to challenge the said order.

¶28

There is absolutely no explanation for the long delay on the part of the accused in complying with the order of which breach is alleged. As noted in the order of this Court dated 25^th March 2021, the accused has not only failed to comply with the order of this Court, but has gone to the extent of offering an opinion on the issue of possession. A prima facie finding has

¶29

¶30

been recorded in the said order that the accused has engineered intervention by a private party.

¶31

In view of the belated compliance, further action under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is not warranted. In view of the conduct of the accused and the unexplained delay, the Court could have always continued the action under the contempt. However, we propose to drop further action by imposing costs on the accused. Considering the conduct of the accused as reflected from the record, the cost amount is quantified at Rs.25,000/-.

¶32

6. Accordingly, we pass the following order:

¶33

(i) The notice of contempt issued earlier to the accused on 9^th February 2021 is discharged;

¶34

(ii) The contempt petition is disposed of subject to the condition that the accused will pay costs quantified at Rs.25,000/to the complainant on or before 31^st May 2021;

¶35

(iii) It will be open for the complainant to challenge the order dated 26^th March 2021 in accordance with law;

¶36

(iv) Though the contempt petition is disposed of, for reporting compliance with the order regarding payment of costs, the same shall be listed for orders on 1^st June 2021;

¶37

¶38

(v) The pending interlocutory application does not survive

¶39

for consideration and is accordingly disposed of.

Sd/-

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/JUDGE

bkv

Sri a Ramasanjeevaiah v. sri shambe gowda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri a Ramasanjeevaiah v. sri shambe gowda

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

Smt Devamma Vs the Tahasildar

Smt Susheelamma Vs the Tahasildar

Smt Muthamma Vs the Tahasildar

Dr Keerthi Gowda B S Vs Dr Karisiddappa

Sri. P. Visweswaraiah Vs Dr. H. R. Mahadev

Sri Siddappa Vs Yadukumar