Disposed

Smt. Sujatha N G v. Sri B G Srinivasa Prasad

Karnataka HC3 Feb 2021CCC/654/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this contempt petition filed for non-compliance with a High Court order, the bench accepted an unconditional apology. The proceedings were disposed of upon the State Government paying costs of Rs. 15,000 to the complainant within one month.

What did the court decide?

Accepted unconditional apology and disposed of the petition. State to pay Rs. 15,000 to complainant within one month.

Smt. Sujatha N G Vs Sri B G Srinivasa Prasad — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 3^RD 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.654 OF 2020 (CIVIL)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. SUJATHA N G AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS W/O NANDAN S REVAMMA COMPOUND 2^ND CROSS, M. G. ROAD TUMAKURU – 572 101.

¶10

…COMPLAINANT

¶11

(BY SRI. M.R. NAGABHUSHAN, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

SRI. B G SRINIVASA PRASAD PRESENT TAHSILDAR MAGADI TALUK, MAGADI TOWN – 562 120. RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.

¶14

SRI. N RAMESH TAHSILDAR EARLIER WORKING AT MAGADI TALUK PRESENTLY WORKING AT: DEPUTY COMMISSIONER URBAN DISTRICT OFFICE K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶15

…ACCUSED

¶16

¶17

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S. BUILDING DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU – 01.

¶18

…RESPONDENT

¶19

(BY SRI. B.V. KRISHNA, AGA FOR A-1 AND A-2)

¶20

THIS CONTEMPT PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, PRAYING TO INITIATE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED PERSON’S FOR HAVING DISOBEYED THE ORDER DATED 16.10.2019 PASSED BY THIS HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU IN W.P.NO.22034 OF 2019 (KLR-RES) AND CONSEQUENTLY PUNISH THE ACCUSED PERSONS UNDER THE CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT.

¶21

THIS CONTEMPT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

ORDER

¶23

It is not in dispute that direction contained in order dated 16^th October 2019 is now complied with subject to outcome of the writ appeal preferred against the said order. In fact, on the last date, we had kept the petition for hearing and the order passed on that day records that the accused has

¶24

¶25

declined to make any submissions on the quantum of punishment.

¶26

Considering what is recorded in the order dated 1^st February 2021, the accused is not entitled to any leniency. However, only in view of the belated compliance that we propose to drop the proceedings of the contempt, subject to the accused paying costs quantified at Rs.15,000/(Rupees fifteen thousand only). Accordingly, we pass the following:

¶27

ORDER

¶28

The unconditional apology tendered in the affidavit dated 15^th January 2021 is accepted and the contempt petition is disposed of subject to condition that the State Government shall pay costs quantified at Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) to the complainant within a period of one month from today. It will

¶29

¶30

be always open for the State Government

¶31

to recover the amount of costs from the officer who is responsible for the delay.

¶32

Sd/CHIEF JUSTICE

¶33

Sd/JUDGE

¶34

Smt. Sujatha N G v. Sri B G Srinivasa Prasad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sujatha N G v. Sri B G Srinivasa Prasad

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

Shabara Shankara Residential Public School Vs Union of India

B K Vinod Kumar Gowda Vs State of Karnataka

K P Sripal Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Mallikarjunaiah B M Vs Sri Bhaskar Rao

Rajani Kulkarni Vs M/S. Diaamond Granites

Anand Doddamani Vs the State of Karnataka