Dismissed

Smt.Mala v. Dr.Madesh

Karnataka HC2 Feb 2021CCC/646/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Chennai Bench of the Bombay High Court dismissed a contempt petition against the BDA Commissioner for delayed compliance with an order dated 11.10.2018. While the petitioner sought initiation of contempt proceedings, the court observed that the accused had offered a belated compliance and no justification for the delay. The court dismissed the petition but directed the accused to pay Rs.20,000

What did the court decide?

The contempt petition was dismissed. Costs of Rs.20,000 were awarded to be paid by the accused within one month.

Smt.Mala Vs Dr.Madesh — Contempt of Court | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

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

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶8

C.C.C. NO. 646 OF 2020 (CIVIL)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT.MALA W/O SRI AMBARISH AGED 42 YEARS R/AT TIPPASANDRA VILLAGE ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU-560 087.

¶11

SMT.PILAMMA W/O SRI KRISHNAPPA AGED 47 YEARS R/AT TIPPASANDRA VILLAGE ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU-560 087.

¶12

SRI MUNIRAJU S/O SRI PAPANNA AGED 52 YEARS R/AT TIPPASANDRA VILLAGE ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU-560 087.

¶13

SRI MUNIYAPPA. T S/O SRI THANANAPPA AGED 50 YEARS R/AT TIPPASANDRA VILLAGE

¶14

¶15

ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU-560 087.

¶16

... COMPLAINANTS

¶17

(BY SHRI H.C.SUNDARESH, ADVOCATE)

¶18

AND:

¶19

Dr.MADESH THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD KUMARA KRUPA WEST BANGALORE-560 020.

¶20

... ACCUSED

¶21

(BY SHRI MURUGESH V.CHARATI, ADVOCATE)

¶22

¶23

THIS C.C.C. IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 PRAYING TO INITITE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED FOR DISOBEYING THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS Court IN W.P. No.8563-8567/2018 DATED 11.10.2018 AS PER ANNEXURE-A, AND ETC.

¶24

THIS C.C.C. COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

ORDER

¶26

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

¶27

¶28

A belated compliance is reported by filing an affidavit dated 29^th January, 2021. Reliance is placed on the communication dated 15^th January, 2021 issued by the Deputy Secretary of Bengaluru Development Authority (for short, “BDA”) to the complainants. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the complainants, there is absolutely no justification offered by the accused for the inordinate delay in making the compliance.

¶29

We have perused the order dated 11^th October, 2018. Paragraph 3 of the order clearly indicates that the same was passed with the consent of the learned counsel representing the accused. The said order was required to be complied with on or before 10^th April, 2019. However, it is complied with on 15^th January, 2021. Except for giving a lame excuse of work pressure and administrative reasons, there is absolutely no explanation for the delay of nearly a year and eight months.

¶30

Though, in view of the compliance made, no further action is required to be initiated under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the accused will have to be saddled with

¶31

¶32

costs quantified at Rs.20,000/-. Accordingly, we dispose of the contempt petition subject to the condition that the respondent-accused/BDA shall pay the total costs quantified at Rs.20,000/- (Rs.5,000/- to each complainant) within one month from today. If the cost amount is paid by BDA, it will be open for BDA to recover the said amount from the officers who are responsible for the delay.

¶33

Though the contempt petition is disposed of, for reporting compliance regarding payment of costs, the same shall be listed on 10^th March, 2021 under the caption of

Orders.

Sd/CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/JUDGE

vgh*

Smt.Mala v. Dr.Madesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Mala v. Dr.Madesh

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

Sri Francies Vs Sri Tejas Kumar

M/S Granito Infrastructure Company Vs Smt. Archana

M Krishna Reddy Vs Sri N Manjunatha Prasad