Dismissed

Mr. M. Venkatesh v. Mr. Karunakar Alva

Karnataka HC1 Apr 2021CCC/189/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a contempt petition alleging disobedience of an interim stay order in a civil appeal on mandatory injunction. It held that since the order was merely protective and did not include a prohibitory injunction, no case for contempt was made out against the accused.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition disposed of; no case made out under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

Mr. M. Venkatesh Vs Mr. Karunakar Alva — Contempt of Court | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF APRIL, 2021

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

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

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶7

C.C.C NO.189 OF 2021 (CIVIL)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MR. M.VENKATESH AGE 71 YEARS

¶10

S/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA

¶11

MRS. V. NIRMALA AGE 50 YEARS W/O DR. BYRA REDDY

¶12

MRS. V. KALAVATHI AGE 47 YEARS W/O A. RAVI

¶13

COMPLAINANT NO.1 TO 3 ARE R/AT NO.401, 12^TH CROSS PALACE UPPER, ORCHARDS BENGALURU - 560 080

¶14

... COMPLAINANTS (BY SHRI S.VICTOR MANOHARAN, ADVOCATE - ABSENT)

¶15

AND: MR. KARUNAKAR ALVA S/O P.C.ALVA, AGE 70 YEARS DIRECTOR, M/S. CASLON POLYAMIDE PVT. LTD. NO.8/1B, NAGAPPA STREET SESHADRIPURAM BENGALURU - 560 020 AND ALSO RESIDING AT NO.3156 12^TH MAIN, HAL II STAGE INDIRANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 008

¶16

... ACCUSED

¶17

¶18

THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 PRAYING TO INITIATE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED FOR HAVING WILLFULLY DISOBEYED AND DISRESPECTED THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 09.07.2014 PASSED IN R.S.A NO.856/2014 BY THIS HON'BLE COURT AND ENSURE THAT THE ACCUSED PUNISHED, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, BY ALLOWING THIS CONTEMPT PETITION WITH COST AND COMPENSATION.

¶19

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

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Though the petition is called out on more than one occasion, none appears for the complainants.

¶22

The breach alleged in this petition is of the interim order dated 9^th July 2014 passed in a Regular Second Appeal preferred by the present complainants. The order is of stay as prayed for in I.A No.1 of 2014.

¶23

As per the directions issued on 26^th February 2021, the complainants have filed on record a copy of I.A No.1 of 2014. The prayer made therein was for stay of operation and implementation of the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts. The present complainants were the second to fourth defendants. The decree has been passed by the Trial Court granting mandatory injunction against the first defendant to execute the sale deed in favour of the third plaintiff. An

¶24

¶25

appeal was preferred by the complainants for challenging the said decree. The appeal has been dismissed by the District Court. The effect of the interim order of which breach is alleged is that the decree for mandatory injunction passed by the Trial Court has been stayed. The allegation against the accused is that in breach of the order dated 9^th July 2014, the third party interests have been created by letting out the industrial plot which is the subject matter of the appeal.

¶26

There is no prohibitory injunction granted under the order dated 9^th July 2014. The only effect of the said interim order is stay of execution of the decree for mandatory injunction. Hence, no case is made out to initiate action under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The petition is disposed of.

¶27

Sd/CHIEF JUSTICE

¶28

Sd/JUDGE

¶29

AHB

Mr. M. Venkatesh v. Mr. Karunakar Alva

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. M. Venkatesh v. Mr. Karunakar Alva

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

Sri Hanumanthappa Kakargal Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Manjunatha Stone Crusher Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Veera Hanuman Stone Crusher Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Mahadevaiah Vs Sri Ramesh

B Subbaya Rai Vs Union of India

Sri S K Chandrashekar Vs the State of Karnataka