Dismissed

The Reserve Bank of India Staff v. B S Hemanth Kumar

Karnataka HC20 Oct 2022CCC/1348/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of contempt proceedings filed under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against accused for disobeying an interim order. The court dropped the proceedings after both parties submitted memos with photographs confirming removal of boards from the disputed property, thus maintaining the status quo.

What did the court decide?

Contempt proceedings were dropped.

The Reserve Bank of India Staff Vs B S… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

CCC No. 1348 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.VEERAPPA

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K. S. HEMALEKHA

¶9

CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 1348 OF 2019

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA STAFF AND OTHERS CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD.,

¶12

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,

¶13

SHANKAR.S

¶14

NO.541/1, RBI LAYOUT, J.P.NAGAR 7^TH PHASE, BANGALORE-560 078.

¶15

…COMPLAINANT

¶16

(BY SRI. NEGAWADI BASAVARAJAIAH., ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

B. S. HEMANTH KUMAR, S/O LATE B.H.SREENIVASMURTHY, AGE-58 YEARS, R/O NO.5/6, KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD, YELACHENAHALLI, J.P.NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 078.

¶19

Digitally signed by USHA NAGENAHALLI SHANMUKHAPPA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶20

MANJUNATHPRASAD COMMISSIONER, BBMP, BENGALURU

¶21

N.R.CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560 002.

¶22

…ACCUSED

¶23

(BY SRI SHAMANTH NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR A1; SRI SREENIDHI V., ADVOCATE FOR A2)

¶24

¶25

CCC No. 1348 of 2019

¶26

THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, R/W ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, BY THE COMPLAINANT, PRAYING TO EVIDENT THAT THE RESPONDNETS/ACCUSED ARE INTENTIONALLY AND WILLFULLY DISOBEYING THE ORDER OF THIS COURT PASSED IN W.A.NO.2690/2015 DATED 19.04.2017 WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-B TO THIS PETITION.

¶27

THIS CCC COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, B.VEERAPPA J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶28

O R D E R

¶29

The present contempt petition is filed by the complainant

¶30

to take action against the accused under the provisions of Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act for deliberate and willful disobedience of the interim order, dated 19^th April, 2017 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.2690/2015 directing the parties to maintain status quo as on the date of the order in relation to the property in dispute.

¶31

It is the case of the complainant that inspite of the interim order granted by this Court stated supra, accused with the assistance of officials of BBMP Bommanahalli Region headed

¶32

by the Joint Commissioner has put up the Board on the park area stating that the land in dispute belongs to B.V.

¶33

¶34

CCC No. 1348 of 2019

¶35

Hanumanthappa and obstructed the Members of the Society

¶36

and the general public by appointing a security guard.

¶37

When the matter had come up before this Court on 29.9.2022, learned Counsel for accused No.1 submitted that the complainant had also put up Board on the property as per Annexure-J and in turn, the learned Counsel for the complainant submitted that if the Board is put up by the complainant, the same would be removed. The said submission was placed on record. Further this Court directed both the parties to ensure that the board on the property in dispute is removed, failing which, the complainant as well as accused No.1 were directed to be present before the Court on the next date of hearing.

¶38

Today, Sri Shamanth Naik, learned Counsel for accused No.1 files a memo, dated 20.10.2022, along with photographs stating that as per the direction of this Court on 29.9.2022, accused No.1 has removed the Board from the disputed property which is evidenced by the photographs. The same is taken on record.

¶39

¶40

CCC No. 1348 of 2019

¶41

Sri Basavarajaiah N., learned Counsel for the

¶42

complainant also files a memo dated 20.10.2022 stating that

¶43

the complainant has removed the Board on 7.10.2022 and produced the photographs showing removal of the Board from the property in question. The same are taken on record.

¶44

The learned Counsel for both sides submit that the Board has been removed by their respective parties and the order of status quo granted by this Court would be maintained.

¶45

In view of the above, we pass the following:

¶46

ORDER

¶47

Contempt proceedings are hereby dropped.

¶48

Sd/JUDGE

¶49

Sd/JUDGE

¶50

Nsu/-

The Reserve Bank of India Staff v. B S Hemanth Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Reserve Bank of India Staff v. B S Hemanth 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

Sri Venkataravana Vs State by Batlahalli Police

Sri B N Ashwath Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka

State by Batlahalli Vs Venkataravan

Rajaram Vs Mr. Bhobalan

Smt Venkatamma Vs Sri. R. Shantha Kumar

Murthi Vs the State of Karnataka