Civil contempt proceedings alleging willful disobedience of a writ order were examined against the one-year limitation in Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act. Relying on an Apex Court decision, the court held proceedings did not survive and dropped them, granting liberty.
Contempt proceedings dropped; liberty granted to complainants in accordance with law.
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:47028-DB CCC No. 701 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 701 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by MAYAGAIAH VINUTHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
R/AT NO. 89, AMBEDKAR NAGAR, 4TH CROSS, BANGALORE - 560 022.
DODDAKALSANDRA, BANGALORE-560062
YELAHANKA NEW TOWN, BANGALORE-560 064.
W/O. SRI. M. JAIRAJ, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, NO.61, E STREET, SHANTHI NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 027.
NO.56, 4TH CROSS, SUBEDARAPALAYA, YESHWANTHPUR, BANGALORE-560 022.
NO.#956, 4TH CROSS SEETHAPPA LAYOUT BANGALORE-560 032.
NO.14, 7TH MAIN, K.N.EXTN. YPR BENGALORE-560 002.
…COMPLAINANTS
(BY SRI. NAGARAJ S, ADVOCATE)
AND:
…ACCUSED
(BY SRI. DEVARAJ C.H, GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR R4 SRI. M.S. DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R3 VIDE ORDER DATED 01/03/2023 A1 & A2 ARE DELETED)
THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT R/W ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO TAKE COGNIZANCE OF CIVIL CONTEMPT AGAINST THE ACCUSED FOR DISOBEYING THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP NO.39871-39945/2016 DATED 17.02.2018 AND PUNISH THE ACCUSED.
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)
Learned counsel Sri Nagaraja.S., for the complainants,
Sri C.H.Devaraju, learned counsel for accused No.4 and Sri M.S.Devaraju, learned counsel for accused No.3 are present before the Court physically.
NC: 2024:KHC:47028-DB CCC No. 701 of 2022
reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1764, wherein the Apex Court, in paragraph 53, held as under:
"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."
rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court, Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act and the reasons assigned in the affidavit filed in support of delay application, the contempt proceedings does not survive for consideration.
dropped.
complainants submits that liberty may be granted. His submission is placed on record.
Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
Sd/(K.SOMASHEKAR) JUDGE
Sd/(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE
VM
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28
1 issue framed by the court
Whether civil contempt proceedings initiated more than one year after the alleged disobedience are barred by Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
S. Tirupathi Rao v. M. LingamaiahRelied on
2024 SCC OnLine SC 1764 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
SMT. THIMMAMMA W/O SRI. PRAKASH B.R
SRI. DAYANAND DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT
SRI. SUNIL KUMAR THASILDAR, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
SRI. PRAKASH MEMBER TALUK PANCHAYATH KONDASHETTYHALLI VILLAGE
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT REVENUE DEPARTMENT
K.SOMASHEKAR
RAJESH RAI K
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
