Disposed

Sri Mushtaq Ahmed v. Sri. Naseer Ahmed

Karnataka HC27 Oct 2022CCC/67/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge of Karnataka High Court disposed of a civil contempt petition filed under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act against two accused. The court allowed the prosecution to drop the proceedings after the accused produced proof regarding payments to the complainant.

What did the court decide?

Contempt proceedings initiated against accused dropped; parties free to pursue remedies in pending proceedings.

Sri Mushtaq Ahmed Vs Sri. Naseer Ahmed — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

CCC No. 67 of 2020

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 27^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. 67 OF 2020

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SRI MUSHTAQ AHMED, S/O LATE SHEIKH AMEER, AGE ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT 77, 7^TH CROSS, 1^ST FLOOR, NEAR MASJID ALA, CHINNAYANAPALAYA, ADOGUDI POST, BANGALORE 560030.

¶12

…COMPLAINANT

¶13

(BY SRI. NAVEED AHMED., ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

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

¶16

SRI. NASEER AHMED, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, THE GENERAL SECRETARY, ISLAMIC MISSION OF INDIA AND DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY, NATIONAL PARK ROAD, BENGALURU 560076.

¶17

SRI. MEER SHAFIULLAH, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, THE PRINCIPAL, ISLAMIAH INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,

¶18

¶19

CCC No. 67 of 2020

¶20

NATIONAL PARK ROAD, BENGALURU 560076.

¶21

…ACCUSED

¶22

(BY SRI PRABHAKAR RAO K., ADVOCATE FOR A1)

¶23

¶24

THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT R/W ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, BY THE COMPLAINANT, PRAYING TO INITIATE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED PERSONS FOR HAVING DELIBERATELY AND INTENTIONALLY, DISOBEYED, DISRESPECTED AND FOR HAVING VIOLATED THE ORDER OF THIS COURT IN W.P.NO.25286/2019 DATED 18.11.2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

¶25

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

¶26

O R D E R

¶27

The complainant has filed the present contempt petition under the provisions of Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act to initiate contempt proceedings against accused for having deliberately and intentionally disobeyed and disrespected the order, dated 18.11.2019, passed in W.P.No. 25286/2019 by the learned Single Judge of this Court, Annexure-A directing to review the decision of keeping the

¶28

¶29

CCC No. 67 of 2020

¶30

complainant under suspension within three weeks and also consider the complainant's claim for payment of subsistence allowance that has occurred due during the suspension period. However, the complainant was permitted to make an appropriate representation with all material particulars within two weeks thereof so that the same facilitates the decision making by the accused, in terms of the mandate within four weeks. It was further observed that if this direction was not accordingly complied with, the accused were collectively liable to pay a cost of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant.

¶31

The learned Counsel for the accused has filed an affidavit, dated 16.9.2021, stating at paragraph-4 as under:

¶32

"I submit that, there was no delay in concluding the Departmental enquiry. The Complainant was paid subsistence allowance from the date of suspension dated 26.11.2018 to till the date of dismissal dated 02.09.2020. There is no contempt of the order dated 18.11.2019 passed by this Hon'ble Court. Copy of the details of subsistence allowance paid to the complainant is here with produced as Annexure-B."

¶33

¶34

CCC No. 67 of 2020

¶35

Today, the learned Counsel for the accused has filed a

¶36

memo for having paid a sum of Rs.2,38,616/- as per AnnexureA; copies of the pass book of the complainant, Annexure-B series; and details of accounts book maintained by the accused, Annexure-C. The same are taken on record.

¶37

Sri Naveed Ahmed, learned Counsel for the

¶38

complainant submits that there is dispute before the Labour Court between complainant and the accused and liberty may be reserved to work out their remedies in accordance with law.

¶39

In view of the affidavit, dated 16.9.2021, filed by the accused and the memo, dated 27.10.2022, producing the documents showing the details of payment of Rs.3,28,616/- to the complainant by the accused, the contempt petition has to be closed.

¶40

In view of the above, we pass the following:

¶41

ORDER

¶42

i) Contempt proceedings initiated against accused are dropped;

¶43

¶44

CCC No. 67 of 2020

¶45

ii) However, it is always open for both parties to work out their remedies/statutory remedy, if any, in the proceedings pending in accordance

with law.

Sd/JUDGE

Sd/JUDGE

Nsu/-

Sri Mushtaq Ahmed v. Sri. Naseer Ahmed

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Mushtaq Ahmed v. Sri. Naseer Ahmed

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

Mr. Vivekananda Swamy N v Vs Dr. Umesh M. Bagari

Rajaram Vs Mr. Bhobalan

The Reserve Bank of India Staff Vs B S Hemanth Kumar

T.Lakshmana Vs C.R.Parameshwarappa

Mrs Tripti Agarwal Vs Mr Vishnu Kumar Agarwal

Sri. S Ramesh Vs Sri. G. Sridhar