Dismissed

Sri B Krishna v. Dr. Surendranath Singh

Karnataka HC3 Apr 2024CCC/126/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This civil contempt petition filed under Article 215 of the Constitution was to punish the accused for disobeying an interim order requiring him to deposit rent and surrender possession. Proceedings were dropped after the accused complied by handing over the property keys before this Court.

What did the court decide?

The contempt proceedings against the accused Dr. Surendranath Singh are dropped due to his voluntary compliance.

Sri B Krishna Vs Dr. Surendranath Singh — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:13767-DB CCC No. 126 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF APRIL, 2024

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

¶9

CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 126 OF 2022

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SRI. B. KRISHNA, @ KRISHNAPPA, S/O SRI BASAVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.972, GROUND FLOOR, 13^TH CROSS, 16^TH MAIN, BSK II STAGE, BENGALURU-560 070. (M) 9448514770 …COMPLAINANT

¶12

Digitally signed by HARIKRISHNA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

(BY SRI. MANJUNATH H, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

DR. SURENDRANATH SINGH S/O N.K.SINGH, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, PROPRIETOR, M/S SAINT MORGAN PHARMACIUTICAL DIVISION OF LEXNOX REMEDIES, NO.57 NANJAPPA LAYOUT, ADJACENT TO J.C. INDUSTRIAL LAYOUT, YELACHENAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 078

¶16

ALSO AT:

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:13767-DB CCC No. 126 of 2022

¶18

NO.142/143, SANMITA, 6^TH CROSS, OMKAR NAGAR, ARKERE, MICO LAYOUT, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 076.

¶19

…ACCUSED

¶20

(BY SRI. P.D.SUBRAMANYA, ADVOCATE)

¶21

THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, R/W SECTIONS 10 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT, PRAYING TO INITIATE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED FOR DISOBEYING THE ORDER 03.12.2021 IN O.S.NO.3047/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE HON BLE COURT OF LVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU AND PUNISH HIM FOR VIOLATING THE SAID ORDER.

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR RECORDING EVIDENCE, THIS DAY, RAJESH RAI.K. J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

ORDER

¶24

This contempt proceedings has been initiated by the complainant for willful disobedience of the order dated 03.12.2021 passed in O.S.No.3047/2021 on the file of the Hon'ble LVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru, wherein the learned Sessions Judge passed the interim order dated 03.12.2021, which reads as under:

¶25

"Counsel for plaintiff present.

¶26

Counsel for Defendant present.

¶27

Objections to IA.No.3 & 4 taken as not filed. Hence, IA.No.3 is allowed.

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:13767-DB CCC No. 126 of 2022

¶29

Defendant is hereby directed to deposit amount of Rs.38,00,320/- towards the arrears of rent and lift maintenance due as on the date of the suit and defendant to continue to deposit the monthly rent and maintenance charges dues before the court.

¶30

In OS.No. 2764/2021 and case on hand parties are same, properties are same. Hence, to avoid the future complications and multiplicity of proceedings, IA.No.4 is allowed.

¶31

OS.No. 3047/2021 is clubbed with OS.No.2764/2021 for recording common evidence for common disposal.

¶32

Call on 21.01.2022."

¶33

In spite of the same, the defendant i.e., the contemnor failed to obey the said interim order. Hence, the complainant initiated this contempt proceedings.

¶34

Both the complainant and the accused/contemnor

¶35

are present before the Court physically and they are identified by their respective counsel.

¶36

This Court, vide order dated 25.03.2024, passed the following order: "Learned counsel Sri.Manjunath H for complainant is present before the Court physically.

¶37

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:13767-DB CCC No. 126 of 2022

¶38

Sri.P.D Subramanya., learned counsel who is appointed by the Karnataka High Court Legal Services Authority on behalf of the accused/partyin-person is present before the Court physically.

¶39

Dr.Surendranath Singh., the accused/partyin-person, who is present before the Court physically, submits that he is a tenant in the property depicted in the original suit, which is initiated by the complainant against him for violation of the interim order dated 03.12.2021 passed by the LVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. He further submits that he was in incarceration for a period of 3 months in Central Prison and he was hospitalized for treatment. He also submits that he is ready to hand over the key relating to the property which is depicted in the suit. This submission made by Dr.Surendranath Singh., the accused/party-inperson is taken on record.

¶40

Further, Dr.Surendranath Singh., the accused/party-in-person has filed a memo undertaking to handover the key of the schedule premises to the complainant/landlord within one week from today. Memo is taken on record.

¶41

List this matter on 03.04.2024.

¶42

The respondent/accused namely Dr.Surendranath Singh and the complainant namely Sri B.Krishna are directed to be present before the Court on the next date of hearing."

¶43

In pursuance of the order passed by this Court dated 25.03.2024, today the accused/contemnor handed over the key of the schedule premises to the complainant.

¶44

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:13767-DB CCC No. 126 of 2022

¶45

In view of the above, learned counsel for the

¶46

complainant submits that this contempt proceedings may be dropped.

¶47

Accordingly, the contempt proceedings is hereby dropped . However, it is needless to mention that the complainant is at liberty to pursue the Execution Petition filed before the Executing Court in accordance with law.

¶48

Sd/JUDGE

¶49

Sd/JUDGE

¶50

VM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21

Sri B Krishna v. Dr. Surendranath Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri B Krishna v. Dr. Surendranath Singh

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

Mr Pankaj Kumar Vs Platinum City

The Karnataka Lokayukta Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri C Rajanna Vs Sri Rathan S G

Sri. Siddaraju Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Rangamani. a Vs the State of Karnataka

A Mohan Vs the State of Karnataka