Disposed

S G Anantharam v. Smt. Lalitha Amrutesh

Contempt Proceedings – Breach of Order

Karnataka HC11 Jun 2021CCC/298/2021

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Civil Contempt Case arising from alleged violation of an order dated 23.08.2019, which rested solely on a stayed Supreme Court decision. The Court held that since the impugned order was based on a decision stayed by the Apex Court, it was not appropriate to initiate contempt jurisdiction, and disposed of the petition keeping the right to revive it open if the stay is vacated in future.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition disposed of with directions that the complainant may apply for revival if the Apex Court vacates the stay.

S G Anantharam Vs Smt. Lalitha Amrutesh — Contempt of Court | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

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

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶8

C.C.C NO.298 OF 2021 (CIVIL)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

S.G.ANANTHARAM S/O LATE S.R.GUNDA BHATTA AGED ABOUT: 70 YEARS R/AT KUMBALAGODU GOLLAHALLI VILLAGE KENGERI HOBLI

¶11

BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK - 560 074

¶12

... COMPLAINANT

¶13

(BY SHRI G.BALAKRISHNA SHASTRY, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

SMT.LALITHA AMRUTESH SENIOR SUB-REGISTRAR

¶16

NO.25, D.M.CHAMBERS

¶17

3^RD FLOOR, NEAR ADIGA HOTEL

¶18

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU ROAD BEML 3^RD STAGE

¶19

RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK

¶20

DIST. BENGALURU - 560 098

¶21

… ACCUSED

¶22

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶23

REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY

¶24

VIDHANA SOUDHA

¶25

DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR ROAD

¶26

BENGALURU - 560 001

¶27

... PROFORMA RESPONDENT NO.2

¶28

(VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 01.04.2021)

¶29

(BY SHRI KIRAN KUMAR, HCGP)

¶30

¶31

¶32

THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971READ WITH ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 PRAYING TO TAKE COGNIZANCE OF THE CONTEMPT COMMITTED BY THE ACCUSED AND INITIATE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED FOR HAVING COMMITTED CONTEMPT OF ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 23.08.2019 IN WP NO.24516/2018. CERTIFIED COPY OF WHICH ORDER IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. THIS CCC COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶33

ORDER

¶34

The learned Additional Government Advocate produced a copy of the order of the Apex Court dated 11^th July 2016. The learned Additional Government Advocate states that by that order, the decision of this Court in the case of G.RAMACHAR AND ANOTHER vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS¹ has been stayed. The learned Additional Government Advocate, on instructions, states that the stay order continues to operate even as of today.

¶35

The learned counsel appearing for the complainant does not dispute that the Apex Court has stayed the

¶36

1 (2016) 3 KLJ 1

¶37

¶38

decision of this Court in the case of G.RAMACHAR (supra) based on which the judgment and order dated 23^rd August 2019 has been passed. The breach alleged is of the said judgment and order dated 23^rd August 2019. However, he submits that before the learned Single Judge in the said writ petition, two grounds were urged. But, the learned Single Judge has allowed the petition only by considering one ground based on the decision in the case of

¶39

G.RAMACHAR (supra) .

¶40

The complainant has invoked the contempt jurisdiction of this Court under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short, "the said Act of 1971") alleging breach of directions issued in paragraph 7 of the judgment and order dated 23^rd August 2019 (Annexure-A). A perusal of paragraphs 6 and 7 of the said judgment and order show that the same is based only on the decision of this Court in the case of G .RAMACHAR (supra) which has been stayed.

¶41

The contempt jurisdiction is always discretionary. It is a quasi- criminal jurisdiction. As the order of which breach is alleged is based only on a decision of this Court which has been stayed, it will not be appropriate to initiate further action under the said Act of 1971. If the stay

¶42

¶43

granted by the Apex Court is vacated, the complainant can always apply for revival of this contempt. If any other remedy is available to the complainant, the same is kept open.

¶44

Subject to what is observed above, the contempt petition is disposed of.

¶45

Sd/CHIEF JUSTICE

¶46

Sd/JUDGE

¶47

AHB

S G Anantharam v. Smt. Lalitha Amrutesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S G Anantharam v. Smt. Lalitha Amrutesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prof.B.Jayadevappa Vs Sri.S.S.Patil

Sri. N. K. Payannavar Vs the Board of Directors

The State of Karnataka Vs Sri. Hanumanarasaiah

Sri Lalji Ladharam Patel Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Mvr Gas Vs M/S Aditya Birla Finance Limited

Sri. Anil Annigeri Vs Sri. Manohar Bevinamar