Dismissed

Sri. a. Murugan v. Sri. P. v Ravindranath

Karnataka HC1 Dec 2022CCC/396/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Order in a complaint under the Contempt of Courts Act filed for willful disobedience of an interim order. The High Court dismissed the petition for non-prosecution after finding that notices to the complainant were returned undelivered due to the address being vacated.

What did the court decide?

Discharged the summons causing parties to contempts and dismissed the complaint for non-prosecution due to failure to serve notices.

Sri. a. Murugan Vs Sri. P. v. Ravindranath — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 01^ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.VEERAPPA

¶5

AND

¶6

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

¶7

C.C.C. No.396/2017 (CIVIL)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI A. MURUGAN S/O. LATE M.K.G. ANGUSWAMY, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, PROPRIETOR, M/S. MURUGAN TYRES RETRADING CO., NO.37/333-2, A.V. ROAD, FORT, KALASIPALYAM, BENGALURU – 560 002.

¶10

... COMPLAINANT

¶11

(BY V/O. DATED 18/03/2020, A. MURUGAN, COMPLAINANT)

¶12

AND:

¶13

SRI P.V. RAVINDRANATH S/O. LATE P. VARADARAJULU SETTY, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/AT NO.37/333, A.V. ROAD, FORT “C” STREET, KALASIPALYAM, BENGALURU – 560 002.

¶14

M/S. NANDAVARIKA SABHA 37/333, A.V. ROAD, FORT, KALASIPALYAM, BENGALURU – 560 002, REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT/SECRETARY, SRI. SURYA PRAKASH RAO.

¶15

... ACCUSED

¶16

¶17

(BY SRI B.C. RAJEEVA, ADVOCATE FOR A-1;

¶18

MS. ANAGHA JAYAPRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI V. RAMESH BABU, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶19

THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 & 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, BY THE COMPLAINANT, WHEREIN HE PRAYS THAT THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT BE PLEASED TO INITIATE CONTEMPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED 1 AND 2 FOR THEIR WILLFUL DISOBEDIENCE AND ILLEGAL ACT AND IN VIOLATION OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 15/11/2012 VIDE ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT IN RFA NO.1824/2012.

¶20

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

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

This Court on 18.03.2020 has passed the following

¶23

order:

¶24

“Sri.P.V.Ravindranath, accused No.1 is present. Accused No.2 is represented by Sri.G.Surya Prakash Rao, then President and Sri.G.V.Nanjundeswara, Treasurer.

¶25

Sri.K.N.Subba Reddy, learned counsel for the complainant submits that he has already filed memo of retirement along with postal track status to show that notice issued to complainant has been delivered. In order to enable the complainant to engage other counsel or to personally appear before the

¶26

- 3 -

¶27

Court, office is hereby directed to show the name of complainant in the next cause list and delete the name of Sri.K.N.Subba Reddy, learned counsel from the cause list.

¶28

List this case for the purpose of filing list of witnesses and to lead evidence. Simultaneously, office is hereby directed to issue Court notice to the complainant in order to take appropriate measures.

¶29

List this case on 15.04.2020.”

¶30

When the matter was posted on 28.07.2021,

¶31

Court notice was reissued to the complainant.

¶32

Notice issued to the complainant was returned

¶33

with postal shara on 17.08.2021 that “left the address” and “insufficient” and also the report of Central Process Nazar, City Civil Court, Bengaluru, which depicts that the addressee vacated the house some years ago.

¶34

On perusal of the address in the notice and the address shown in the RFA as well as in the contempt

¶35

¶36

petition are same and thereby, this Court left with no other option except to dismiss the contempt petition for default.

¶37

In view of the above, the contempt petition is

¶38

dismissed for non-prosecution .

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/JUDGE

MBM

Sri. a. Murugan v. Sri. P. v Ravindranath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. a. Murugan v. Sri. P. v Ravindranath

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

State of Karnataka Vs Mallappa

Shahistha Vs the State

Gopala Vs State of Karnataka

Thipparaju M C Vs Dr Mamatha B R

Smt. Manjula Vs Sri. K. S. Kantharaju

Mr G Charles Samuel Vs Mrs Benita Susan M