Civil contempt proceeding for wilful disobedience of an earlier writ order. Accused No.2 died and proceedings against her were abated. Relying on Section 20's one-year limitation and the Supreme Court decision in S.Tirupati Rao, the High Court held the punitive petition lacked substance and dropped the contempt proceedings.
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.
NC: 2024:KHC:42974-DB CCC No. 571 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 571 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
SMT. DEEPA.C S/O CHANNABASAPPA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/AT SIDDAMANAHALLI BANGARAKKANAGUDDA KUCHVANVANAHALLI POST JAGALUR TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT PIN: 577 528.
…COMPLAINANT
Digitally signed by HARIKRISHNA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
(BY SMT. ANITHA PANDE AND
SRI. RAVI SHANKAR .K, ADVOCATES)
AND:
DAVANAGERE EAST DIVISION DAVANAGERE
PIN: 577 002.
…ACCUSED
(BY SRI. RANGA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT. SUMANA NAGANAND, ADVOCATE FOR A1 VIDE ORDER DATED 24.10.2024 PETITION AGAINST A2 IS ABATED)
THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, PRAYING TO INITIATE APPROPRIATE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED PERSONS AND PUNISH FOR HAVING WILFUL DISOBEDIENCE OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS HONBLE COURT IN WP NO.54007/2017 DATED 23.04.2019.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR)
This contempt proceeding is initiated under Sections 11
and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 r/w Article 215 of the Constitution of India for wilful disobedience of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.54007/2017 dated 23.04.2019.
counsel namely, Smt. Anitha Pande, who is present before this Court physically.
counsel for accused No.1 in this matter to consider the reasons stated detailed in the affidavit.
submits that there is delay in initiation of the contempt proceeding.
20. 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.
and others reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1764 in paragraphs 52 and 53 observed as under:
52. Therefore, it would be correct to state that the court’s power when dealing with the question of contempt, in a sense, is discretionary. It cannot be gainsaid that even in cases where disobedience of the order of the court is not disputed, the court may
also accept a defence, if raised, of impossibility to comply with an order and come to the conclusion that since it is impossible to enforce its order, action to punish may not be initiated. That apart, refusal may be justified by grave concerns of public policy. Much would depend on the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the contempt under enquiry, etc., which would enable the court to exercise its discretion either way. However, to demonstrate his bona fide, the contemnor ought to bring any valid defence for his disability to comply with the court’s direction to its notice without wasting any time. Whatever be the position before it, nothing stands in the way of the high court from passing an order to ensure that nothing impedes the course of justice.
53. Reverting to the point of limitation, even in case of a petition disclosing facts constituting contempt, which is civil in nature, the petitioner cannot choose a time convenient to him to approach the Court. The statute refers to a specific time limit of one year from the date of alleged contempt for proceedings to be initiated; meaning thereby, as laid down in Pallav Sheth (supra), that the action should be brought within a year, and not beyond, irrespective of when the proceedings to punish for contempt are actually initiated by the high court.
9. Therefore, keeping in view Section 20 of the Act
and so also, the reliance of the Hon’ble Supreme Court stated supra and the detailed affidavit which has been submitted by the accused No.1, are concerned, it is deemed appropriate to state that there is no substance to consider this contempt
NC: 2024:KHC:42974-DB CCC No. 571 of 2022
petition as it is punitive in nature. Consequently, this contempt
proceeding is hereby dropped .
Sd/(K.SOMASHEKAR)
JUDGE
Sd/(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE
KTY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the civil contempt proceeding is maintainable in view of the one-year limitation under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
S.Tirupati Rao vs. Lingamaiah and othersRelied on¶9
2024 SCC OnLine SC 1764 · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Smt. Deepa.C
Sri. Rajendra Cholan
Smt. Lakshmi
K. Somashekar
Rajesh Rai K
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
