Allowed

Sri Francies v. Sri Tejas Kumar

Karnataka HC2 Feb 2021CCC/554/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In these contempt proceedings filed under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971, the complainants challenged the accused's willful disobedience of a mandatory order. The accused submitted an unconditional apology for the delay in compliance. The court accepted the apology and dropped the proceedings, directing the State to pay costs to the complainants.

What did the court decide?

Contempt proceedings dropped; State of Karnataka to pay costs of Rs. 10,000 to the complainants.

Sri Francies Vs Sri Tejas Kumar — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

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

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

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

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶7

C.C.C NO.554 OF 2020 (CIVIL)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

1 . SRI. FRANCIES S/O LATE DODDA ANTHONY .B AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS

¶10

2 . SRI. BORTHALAM S/O LATE DODDA ANTHONY .B AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS

¶11

3 . SRI. A. ARALAPPA S/O LATE CHIKKA ANTHONY .B AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS

¶12

4 . SRI. A. FRANCIS

¶13

S/O LATE CHIKKA ANTHONY .B AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS

¶14

5 . SAGAYA MARY W/O LATE A CHOURI RAJ AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

¶15

6 . ANTHONY ASHA .C D/O LATE A. CHOURI RAJ AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS

¶16

7 . PRABHU SAGAR .C S/O LATE A. CHOURI RAJ AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS

¶17

¶18

8 . ROOPA KALA .C D/O LATE A. CHOURI RAJ AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS 9 . SRI. ANTHONY RAJ S/O LATE AMRUTHRAJ AGED 43 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT SY NO.23/8 MARIYANA PALYA, ARABIC COLLEGE POST K.R.PURAM HOBLI BANGALORE - 560 045

¶19

... COMPLAINANTS

¶20

(BY SHRI. VIJAYA KUMAR .K, ADVOCATE (ABSENT))

¶21

AND: 1 . SRI. TEJAS KUMAR AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS THE THASILDAR K.R.PURAM BENGALURU EAST TALUK BENGALURU - 560 036

¶22

... ACCUSED

¶23

2 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS REVENUE DEPARTMENT REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY M.S. BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 001

¶24

... PRO FORMA RESPONDENT NO.2

¶25

(BY SHRI. I. TARANATH POOJARY, AGA)

¶26

¶27

THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT, 1971, BY THE COMPLAINANT, WHEREIN HE PRAYS THAT THE HON'BLE COURT BE PLEASED TO TAKE SUITABLE ACTION AGAINST THE ACCUSED FOR HIS WILLFUL DISOBEDIENCE OF THE ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE COURT VIDE ORDER DATED 20.03.2020, PASSED IN W.P.NO.90/2020 (KLR-RR/SUR) PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A.

¶28

THIS CCC COMING ON FOR ORDERS, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶29

¶30

ORDER

¶31

The counsel for the complainants is not present.

¶32

By the order dated 20^th March 2020 passed by this Court, a writ of mandamus was issued to consider the representations made by the complainants regarding the area of the subject land and to pass an order within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order.

¶33

There is an affidavit filed by the accused in which he claims that he was made aware of the order in the first week of June 2020. The order reporting compliance has been passed as late as on 27^th January 2021.

¶34

The accused has tendered his unconditional apology for the delay. By accepting the apology, the contempt proceedings deserves to be dropped subject to the State Government paying costs quantified at Rs.10,000/- to the complainants.

¶35

Accordingly, we dispose of the petition. However, the State of Karnataka shall pay costs quantified at Rs.10,000/to the complainants.

¶36

¶37

It will be open for the complainants to challenge the survey and the order dated 27^th January 2021 in accordance with law.

¶38

Though the petition is disposed of, for reporting compliance regarding payment of costs, the same shall be listed on 8^th March 2021 under the caption of 'Orders'.

Sd/-

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/JUDGE

Sri Francies v. Sri Tejas Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Francies v. Sri Tejas Kumar

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

V. Lokesh Vs Shri Manjunath Prasad

Smt Manjula Vs Sri Jagadish

Sri v Anjanappa Vs Sri Shivappa Lamani Kas

Smt.Mala Vs Dr.Madesh

M/S Granito Infrastructure Company Vs Smt. Archana

M Krishna Reddy Vs Sri N Manjunatha Prasad