Disposed

Smt.Honnamma v. Sri.Mahadev

Karnataka HC25 Jun 2021CCC/228/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka disposed of contempt proceedings filed against the Commissioner of BDA for alleged non-compliance with an order by the Single Judge. The Court held that since the demanded amount was paid and the sale deed executed, no further action under the Contempt of Courts Act was warranted, though the complainant could challenge the valuation legally if necessary.

What did the court decide?

The contempt petition was disposed of.

Smt.Honnamma Vs Sri.Mahadev — Contempt of Court | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2021

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

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

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ CCC NO.228 OF 2021 (CIVIL)

¶6

BETWEEN

¶7

SMT. HONNAMMA W/O LATE MADDAYYA AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS RESIDING AT GIDADAKONENAHALLI YESHWANTHAPURA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU-560091 … COMPLAINANT

¶8

(BY SRI. H.T. VASANTH KUMAR, ADVOCATE-VC) AND

¶9

SRI. MAHADEV THE COMMISSIONER BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD KUMARAPARK WEST BENGALURU-560020 …ACCUSED

¶10

(BY SRI. G. LAKSHMEESH RAO, ADVOCATE-VC)

¶11

THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT 1971, PRAYING TO SECURE THE ACCUSED HEREIN, INITIATE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS FOR NON-COMPLIANCE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.NO.44272/2018 DATED 08.04.2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND PUNISH THE ACCUSED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT.

¶12

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

¶13

¶14

ORDER

¶15

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the complainant and the learned counsel appearing for the accused.

¶16

Perused the affidavit of Sri.Rajesh Gowda, the

¶17

Commissioner of Bengaluru Development Authority (BDA). In the affidavit, it is stated that the price of the site allotted to the complainant was assessed at Rs.18,90,000/-. The letter of intimation dated 21^st May 2021 annexed to the affidavit records that the entire amount was paid by the complainant. The learned counsel appearing for the complainant also accepts that thereafter on 23^rd June 2021, a sale deed has been executed and registered by the BDA in respect of the site allotted to the complainant. The learned counsel for the complainant submits that the payment was made under protest as the computation of the price made by the accused is not in terms of the order of which breach is alleged in this petition.

¶18

The contempt jurisdiction is always discretionary. It is also a quasi judicial jurisdiction. The fact remains that as per the demand raised by the BDA, requisite amount has been paid by the complainant and has got the sale deed executed from the

¶19

¶20

BDA, in his favour. Therefore, this is not a fit case where action under Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 should be continued against the accused. If the complainant has paid the demanded amount under the protest, he can always file appropriate proceedings in accordance with law for challenging the said demand and consequently, to pray for refund of the alleged excess amount. Suffice it to say that this is not a case where further action should be continued under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1981.

¶21

4. Subject to what is observed above, the petition is disposed

of.

Sd/CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/JUDGE

Prs*

Smt.Honnamma v. Sri.Mahadev

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Honnamma v. Sri.Mahadev

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

Mayanna Vs K.Manjunath

Arch Bishop Vs Nagappa Kamatti

Somashekara R Vs S R Umashankar I as

Sri Prasanna Shetty Vs the Regional Commissioner and

M/S. Yojaka India Private Limited Vs State of Karnataka

Sri G L Lakshmegowda Vs District Stone Crusher Licensing and Regulation Authority