Dismissed

T N Vijayanarayana Reddy v. Dr Bagadi Gautham

Karnataka HC7 Mar 2024CCC/468/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed an intermediate application to amend the cause-title under inherent powers. The complainants sought to withdraw the contempt petition while leaving open the contention of reduced extent. The court recorded the withdrawal and dismissed the petition accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Intermediate Application No.2/2022 allowed; contempt petition dismissed as withdrawn.

T N Vijayanarayana Reddy Vs Dr Bagadi Gautham — Contempt of Court | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:9567-DB CCC No. 468 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

¶9

CCC NO. 468 OF 2022

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

T N VIJAYANARAYANA REDDY

¶12

S/O LATE SRI.T.N.KRISHNAREDDY AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS

¶13

RESIDING AT SATHSANG NAGAR NAKKALADINNE VILLAGE PONNUTIPALEM POST MADANAPALLI

¶14

CHITTOOR DISTRICT-517001.

¶15

Digitally signed by SUMATHY KANNAN Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶16

V VIKRAM REDDY S/O LATE V SURENDRANATHA REDDY AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/A NO.3/2-1, 6A REGENCY HIGHTS CLEVELAND ROAD, FRAZER TOWN BANGALORE-560 005.

¶17

V SOUMINI REDDY AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS W/O LATE V MADHUSUDHANA REDDY RESIDING AT NO 2-788 SATHYANARAYANAPURAM KONGAREDDY PALLI

¶18

CHITTOR - 517001.

¶19

V NACHIKETH REDDY AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS S/O LATE V MADHUSUDHANA REDDY RESIDING AT NO 2-788 SATHYANARAYANAPURAM

¶20

¶21

NC: 2024:KHC:9567-DB CCC No. 468 of 2022

¶22

KONGAREDDY PALLI

¶23

CHITTOR - 517001.

¶24

COLONEL. JACOB JACOB VSM S/O LATE MAJOR N K JABOB AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS R/A NO.77, VERSOVA LAYOUT CV RAMAN NAGAR KAGGADASAPURA MAIN ROAD BANGALORE-560 093.

¶25

BHAGIRATH SINHJI RANA S/OLATE RANA RAMACHANDRA SINHJI AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS R/A DOOR NO.27/1, RANA TERRACE GOVT., HOUSE ROAD NAZARABAD, MYSORE-10.

¶26

VIBHUTHI DEVI W/O HANUMAN SINHJI RANA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/A DOOR NO.27/1, RANA TERRACE GOVT. HOUSE ROAD NAZARABAD, MYSORE-10.

¶27

…COMPLAINANTS

¶28

(BY SMT. S R ANURADHA – SR. COUNSEL FOR MISS. M C AMRUTHA VARSHINI – ADVOCATE)

¶29

AND:

¶30

DR. BAGADI GAUTHAM THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MYSORE DISTRICT MYSORE-570 001.

¶31

MR B N GIRISH THE TAHSILDAR MYSORE DISTRICT MYSORE-570 001.

¶32

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:9567-DB CCC No. 468 of 2022

¶33

MR. TUSHAR GIRINATH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE VIDHANA SOUDHA DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560 001.

¶34

STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE VIDHANA SOUDHA DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560 001 REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

¶35

…ACCUSED

¶36

(BY SRI. – SUDEV HEGDE - AGA)

¶37

THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT AND RULE 3 OF THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (CONTEMPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS) RULES, 1981, PRAYING TO INITIATE ACTION AGAINST ACCUSED OF THE ORDER THAT THE ACCUSED ARE GUILTY OF CONTEMPT OF ORDER DATED 19.06.2020 OF THIS HON’BLE COURT IN W.P.NO.22658-22662/2015 AND 22663/2015 C/W W.P.NO.31138-31143/2015, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A.

¶38

THIS CCC, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, K. SOMASHEKAR .J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶39

¶40

NC: 2024:KHC:9567-DB CCC No. 468 of 2022

¶41

ORDER

¶42

Learned Senior counsel Smt Anuradha S R for Smt Amrutha Varshini, learned counsel for complainants is present.

¶43

I.A.No. 2/2022 is filed by complainants under Section 151 of CPC r/w Section 22 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 seeking to permit complainant Nos.3 and 4 being the LRs of the Petitioner No.3 in WP No.31138-31143/2015 to prosecute the instant contempt petition of behalf of the deceased Petitioner No.3.

¶44

Section 151 of CPC provides that “Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent power of the Court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice to prevent abuse of the process of the Court”. Keeping in view the Inherent Power of the Court under section 151 of CPC, I.A.No. 2/2022 is allowed and complainants are permitted to carry out the amendment to the cause-title as sought for and furnish a copy of the amended complaint petition.

¶45

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:9567-DB CCC No. 468 of 2022

¶46

Learned Senior counsel for complainants has filed a memo seeking to withdraw the contempt petition, leaving the contention of reduced extent open. However, it is relevant to refer the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme of India in the case of Sri N Rajanna Vs. Dr Rajaneesh Goel, IAS,

¶47

Principal Secretary, Department of Youth Services and

¶48

Sports and Another reported in ILR 2017 KAR 995 , Wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that - Contempt of Court Act, 1971 – Sections 11 and 12 – No time is fixed for compliance of the order – Action for contempt – Maintainability – HELD, if no time limit is fixed for compliance of the order, action for contempt of Court is such a case is not maintainable in law.” Further it is required to refer the provision of Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act which reads as “Limitation for actions for contempt. — No court shall initiate any proceedings of contempt, either on its own motion or otherwise, after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed”.

¶49

Keeping in view the above reliance and Sections 11, 12

¶50

and 20 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the memo for

¶51

¶52

NC: 2024:KHC:9567-DB CCC No. 468 of 2022

¶53

withdrawal filed by complainants is placed on record and

¶54

complainants are permitted to withdraw the complaint.

¶55

Accordingly, this contempt petition is dismissed as

withdrawn.

Sd/JUDGE

Sd/JUDGE

T N Vijayanarayana Reddy v. Dr Bagadi Gautham

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T N Vijayanarayana Reddy v. Dr Bagadi Gautham

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Devendrappa S G., Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri H M Basavaraju Vs the State of Karnataka

Avery Dennison (India) Private Limited Vs 3M India Limited

Sri. Thimmappa Reddy Vs Smt. Yerramma

Sri.Mahadeshwara .K. Vs the State of Karnataka

The State of Karnataka Vs Sri. Raghunatha Reddy H B