In this civil contempt petition, the High Court of Karnataka examined a complaint of willful disobedience regarding construction violations. The court held that the accused did not commit contempt as the trial court's subsequent injunction rendered the compliance issue moot.
Contempt proceedings were dropped.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CCC No. 540 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K. S. HEMALEKHA
CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 540 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.613, 5TH MAIN, RAILWAY LAYOUT, 2ND STAGE, NEAR VIDYANIKETHAN SCHOOL, BANGALORE-560 056.
…COMPLAINANTS
(BY SRI. SHARATH S GOWDA.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by USHA NAGENAHALLI SHANMUKHAPPA Location: High Court of Karnataka
…ACCUSED
(BY SRI R.S. RAVI, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI SATHISH KUMAR J., ADVOCATE)
CCC No. 540 of 2021
THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT BY THE COMPLAINANTS PRAYING TO HOLD THE ACCUSED GUILTY OF CONTEMPT OF COURT FOR WILLFUL DISOBEDIENCE OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 07.04.2021 PASSED BY THIS COURT IN MFA NO.1717/2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND FURTHER TO PUNISH THE ACCUSED WITH IMPRISONMENT OF SIX MONTHS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971.
THIS CCC COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, B.VEERAPPA J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
The complainants have filed the present contempt petition under the provisions of Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act to initiate contempt of court proceedings against the accused for willful disobedience of the judgment, dated 1.4.2021, passed in MFA No.1717/2021, Annexure-A wherein the learned Single Judge while allowing the miscellaneous first appeal directed the trial Court to consider the applications I.As.1 and 2 and pass orders on or before 30th June, 2021 and if possible before the start of the ensuing summer vacation. The paragraphs-9 and 9 of the said judgment read as under:-
"9. In my view, the approach of the trial Court in considering only I.A.No.I and not
CCC No. 540 of 2021
considering the application filed by the first defendant is wholly erroneous. In that view of the matter, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Trial Court with a direction to consider I.A. 1 filed by the plaintiff and I.A.No.2 filed by the first defendant together and pass appropriate orders.
9. Since admittedly there is no approved plan in favour of the plaintiff, it would not be equitable or proper to permit the plaintiff to proceed with the further construction. Hence, both the parties shall maintain status quo till the disposal of the aforesaid applications."
CCC No. 540 of 2021
to maintain status quo, till the disposal of the applications by the trial Court submitted that, subsequently, on 2nd August, 2021, the trial Court considering the applications I.As.1 and 2 granted temporary injunction and thereafter, the construction was put up on 8.8.2021 as per photographs-1 to 21 produced along with the counter affidavit filed by the accused and thereby there is no violation of the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. He further contended that the trial Court while allowing the application for temporary injunction observed that if the accused-plaintiff has not obtained any plan or license for construction of the building, the aggrieved party may lodge a complaint to the Commissioner of BBMP under the provisions of Section 321 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act. He further contended that the order, dated 2nd August, 2021 passed by the trial Court granting temporary injunction in favour of the accused has reached finality and thereby, there is no contempt on behalf of the accused.
CCC No. 540 of 2021
matter was remitted to the trial Court with a direction to consider the application I.A.1 filed by the complainant and I.A.2 filed by the accused and pass appropriate orders and till then, the parties were directed to maintain status quo with regard to construction. Since the trial Court granted temporary injunction in favour of the accused and the same has reached finality, no contempt is made out by the complainant.
ORDER
Contempt proceedings are hereby dropped.
Sd/JUDGE
Sd/JUDGE
Nsu/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the accused committed contempt of court for constructing a building after a single judge ordered a status quo?
Whether reliance on a subsequent trial court temporary injunction negates the contempt allegation regarding disobedience of the single judge's order?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
PADMAVATHI
M. P. KANTHARAJU
SANDHYARANI S.
B. VEERAPPA
K. S. HEMALEKHA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
