Disposed

Sambasivan D v. Ms. Usha Rani

Karnataka HC2 Mar 2021CCC/53/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka disposed of a contempt petition filed under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The court held that initiating contempt proceedings was not a fit case considering the nature of the stay order and the interim relief sought in the underlying civil appeal. The petitioner was directed to seek appropriate interim relief in the pending appeal.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed; no contempt proceedings initiated; petitioner directed to claim appropriate interim relief in the pending appeal.

Sambasivan D Vs Ms. Usha Rani — Contempt of Court | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF MARCH, 2021

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

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

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶7

C.C.C NO.53 OF 2021 (CIVIL)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SAMBASIVAN D AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS S/O LATE N.DORAISWAMY MUDALIAR R/O 11^TH CROSS, 2^ND BLOCK R.T.NAGAR BANGALORE-560032

¶10

... COMPLAINANT

¶11

(BY SHRI VIVEK HOLLA,, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

1 . MS. USHA RANI D/O LATE DHANAKOTI MAJOR

¶14

2 . MS UMA RANI D/O LATE DHANAKOTI MAJOR

¶15

3 . MR PRABHAKAR S/O LATE DHANAKOTI MAJOR

¶16

4 . MS SHASHIKALA D/O LATE DHANAKOTI MAJOR

¶17

ALL ARE RESIDING AT No.13 OLD S.26/5, SHESHADRI ROAD NEAR CITY RAILWAY STATION BANGALORE-560009

¶18

¶19

5 . M/S SHEETAL RESIDENCY HOTEL SHEETAL, NO.32 SESHADRI ROAD ANAND RAO CIRCLE BANGALORE -560009 (A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER DR.BINDU AND MADHAV RAO)

¶20

6 . DR BINDU MADHAVA RAO MANAGING DIRECTOR MAJOR, FATHERS’ NAME NOT KNOWN 7 . KIRAN RAO MAJOR, FATHERS’ NAME NOT KNOWN 8 . MR P VINAY RAO MAJOR, FATHERS’ NAME NOT KNOWN R-6 TO 8 ARE R/A AND C/O M/S SHEETAL RESIDIENCY RESIDENCY HOTEL, NO.32 SESHADRI ROAD ANAND RAO CIRCLE BANGALORE-560009 ... ACCUSED

¶21

THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 READ WITH ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO HOLD THAT THE RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED HEREIN GUILTY OF CONTEMPT OF COURT FOR WILLFUL DISOBEDIENCE OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 3.3.2015 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN R.F.A NO.892 OF 2014 C/W R.F.A No.893 OF 2014 AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO PUNISH THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED WITH IMPRISONMENT OF SIX MONTHS IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROVISONS OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT 1971, AND ETC.

¶22

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

¶23

¶24

ORDER

¶25

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

¶26

complainant.

¶27

The complainant is the appellant in Regular First Appeal No.892 of 2014. The said appeal has been preferred by the complainant for challenging the decree passed by the City Civil Court in a suit bearing O.S No.9670 of 2005. It was a suit filed by the complainant for partition and separate possession. The suit was dismissed and, therefore, RFA No.892 of 2014 has been preferred. I.A was filed in the said appeal in which the only prayer was for stay of the decree of dismissal of the suit.

¶28

On the face of it, such a prayer for stay of the decree of dismissal of the suit could not have been entertained as there is nothing to be stayed. The breach alleged is of the interim order dated 3^rd March 2015 passed by the learned Single Judge while admitting the appeal. The said order directs the parties to main status quo . The interim order of status quo will have to be read with reference to the prayer made for interim relief which was only for stay of the decree of dismissal of the suit. There was no prayer for passing any prohibitory order or an order of temporary injunction.

¶29

¶30

The contempt jurisdiction is always discretionary. Considering the prayer made for interim relief in the appeal and considering the nature of the order dated 3^rd March 2015, we are of the view that this is not a fit case to initiate proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Accordingly, the contempt petition is disposed of.

¶31

However, this order will not prevent the complainant from claiming appropriate interim relief in the pending Regular First Appeal.

Sd/-

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/JUDGE

AHB

Sambasivan D v. Ms. Usha Rani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sambasivan D v. Ms. Usha Rani

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

Prashanth Regency Welfare Association Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Pharmatree Corporation Vs Rajya Vokkaligara Sangha

Sri R Shivakumar Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Kshethra Perara Seva Samithi (Regd) Vs Dr. Rajendra K v

Shri Prakash S/O Hulugannu Gudi Vs Shri Raju Bhurut @ Rajendrakumar Bhurut Jain

Dr. B. H. Devaraju Vs Dr. Y. M. Reddy