Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Smt. Saraswathi v Vs Mr. Ravi Kumar M.R. — Contempt of Court | Karnataka HC (2025)

Home
Karnataka HC
2025
Smt. Saraswathi v Vs Mr. Ravi Kumar M.R.Smt. Saraswathi v. Vs Mr. Ravi Kumar M.R.

Disposed¶50

Smt. Saraswathi v. Vs Mr. Ravi Kumar M.R.

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Section 20

Karnataka HC22 Jan 2025CCC/290/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CCC No. 290 of 2020, High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (Division Bench: K. Somashekar and Venkatesh Naik T, JJ.), decided 22.01.2025 (NC: 2025:KHC:2553-DB). Civil contempt by land-grant beneficiary against Deputy Commissioner, D.K. District and Principal Secretary (Revenue) for non-compliance with W.P.No.23692/2012 order dated 23.07.2012, confirmed in W.A.No.8735/2012 on 15.02.2019, seeking market value at 300 times land revenue and permanent ownership certificate. Proceeding dropped as barred under Section 20 (one-year limitation), Contempt of Courts Act 1971, following S. Tirupati Rao vs. Lingamaiah (2024 SCC OnLine SC 1764) and Pallav Sheth. Keywords: contempt limitation, Section 20, one year, dropped, granted land, Dakshina Kannada.

What did the court decide?

Contempt proceeding dropped on account of Section 20, Contempt of Courts Act limitation; name of accused No.2 deleted on the complainant's memo; no direction issued to collect the market value of the granted land at 300 times of land revenue or to issue a certificate of permanent ownership.

Why is it important?

Keeping in view Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and the law relied upon from the Hon'ble Supreme Court (S.Tirupati Rao vs. Lingamaiah, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1764), the present contempt proceeding does not survive for consideration and is accordingly dropped. ¶50

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Contempt proceeding dropped on account of Section 20, Contempt of Courts Act limitation; name of accused No.2 deleted on the complainant's memo; no direction issued to collect the market value of the granted land at 300 times of land revenue or to issue a certificate of permanent ownership.

Issue for consideration

Whether the contempt proceeding alleging disobedience of the order dated 23.07.2012 in W.P.No.23692/2012 (LR), confirmed on 15.02.2019 in W.A.No.8735/2012 (LR), survives in view of the one-year limitation prescribed by Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

Court's answer

Keeping in view Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and the law relied upon from the Hon'ble Supreme Court (S.Tirupati Rao vs. Lingamaiah, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1764), the present contempt proceeding does not survive for consideration and is accordingly dropped.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 — Section 20 — limitation of one year for initiating contempt proceedings. Civil Contempt Petition under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act read with Article 215 of the Constitution alleging disobedience of the learned Single Judge's order dated 23.07.2012 in W.P.No.23692/2012 (LR), confirmed by order dated 15.02.2019 in W.A.No.8735/2012 (LR); complainant prayed for collection of the market value of the granted land at 300 times of land revenue and issuance of a certificate of permanent ownership. Held, applying Section 20 and relying on S. Tirupati Rao vs. Lingamaiah, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1764, that the contempt proceeding does not survive for consideration and is dropped. Name of accused No.2 (Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue) deleted on memo as not a necessary party.

A

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:2553-DB CCC No. 290 of 2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR

AND

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 290 OF 2020

BETWEEN:

SMT. SARASWATHI V W/O VISHWANATHA SHETTY AGED78 YEARS R/AT SAADANA HOUSE KODIYAL POST, VIA BELLARI TALUKA SULLIA, D.K.574239.

…COMPLAINANT

Digitally signed by SUMATHY KANNAN

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

(BY SRI. PRUTHVIRAJ SHASTRY – ADVOCATE FOR SRI. G BALAKRISHNA SHASTRY – ADVOCATE)

AND:

MR. RAVI KUMAR M.R. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER D.K.DISTRICT-575001

(AMENDED VCO DATED 03.03.2023 )

DR. RAJKUMAR KATHRI PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M.SBUILDING, BENGALURU-560002.

…ACCUSED

(BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH B G – AGA)

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 INITIATE CONTEMPT

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:2553-DB CCC No. 290 of 2020

PROCEEDINGS AGAINST ACCUSED NO.1 AND 2 IN RESPECT OF THE CONTEMPT OF THE ORDER DATED 23/07/2012 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND CONFIRMED BY THE ORDER DATED 15/02/2019 IN W.A. NO.8735/2012 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURED FURTHER DIRECT THE ACCUSED NO.1 AND 2 TO COLLECT THE MARKET VALUE OF THE GRANTED LAND AT 300 TIMES OF LAND REVENUE AND ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF PERMANENT OWNERSHIP IN FAVOUR OF THE COMPLAINANT.

THIS CCC, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

ORAL ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR)

This Contempt proceeding is filed by the complainant against the respondents/accused in view of disobedience of the order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.23692/2012 (LR) dated 23.07.2012 vide Annexure–A and confirmed by the order dated 15.02.2019 in WA.No.8735/2012 (LR).

Learned counsel Sri Pruthviraj Shastry appears on behalf of learned counsel Sri G.Balakrishna Shastry who is on record for the complainant. Learned AGA Smt Namitha Mahesh B.G for respondents/accused is present.

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:2553-DB CCC No. 290 of 2020

Subsequent to rendering the above said order in WP.No.23692/2012, an appeal in WA.No.8735/2012 (LR) was preferred challenging the order rendered by the learned Single Judge in WP.No.23692/2012 and the same was dismissed on 15.02.2019.

Learned counsel for the complainant has filed a memo seeking deletion of name of accused No.2-Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, as accused No.2 is not a necessary party in the above contempt. Therefore, memo is placed on record. Registry is directed to delete the name of accused No.2.

Learned AGA is directed to accept notice for respondent/accused No.1.

In this contempt proceeding, the complainant seeks to initiate the contempt proceeding against respondents/accused in respect of the contempt of the order dated 23.07.2012 in WP.No.23692/2012 and confirmed by the order dated 15.02.2019 in

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:2553-DB CCC No. 290 of 2020

W.A.No.8735/2012. However, it is relevant to refer

Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 which

reads as under:

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.

Further, it is also relevant to refer judgment

rendered by The Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.Tirupati

Rao vs. Lingamaiah 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

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:2553-DB CCC No. 290 of 2020

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.

Keeping in view Section 20 of the Contempt of

Courts Act and so also, the reliance of the Hon’ble Supreme Court stated supra, it is deemed appropriate that

the present contempt proceeding do not survive for consideration. Accordingly, the contempt proceeding is

hereby dropped.

SD/-

(K.SOMASHEKAR) JUDGE

SD/(VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE

RJ

Issues for consideration

1 issue framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the contempt proceeding alleging disobedience of the order dated 23.07.2012 in W.P.No.23692/2012 (LR), confirmed on 15.02.2019 in W.A.No.8735/2012 (LR), survives in view of the one-year limitation prescribed by Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.¶36
The court held
Keeping in view Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and the law relied upon from the Hon'ble Supreme Court (S.Tirupati Rao vs. Lingamaiah, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1764), the present contempt proceeding does not survive for consideration and is accordingly dropped.ratio¶50

Cases cited

Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority

AI extract

S.Tirupati Rao vs. LingamaiahRelied on¶41
2024 SCC OnLine SC 1764 · Who else cites this
Pallav ShethReferred¶47
Pallav Sheth (supra)

Statutes considered

3 provisions across 2 enactments

AI extract

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971Sections 11 and 12¶21 Section 20¶37
Constitution of IndiaArticle 215¶21

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 23.07.2012 passed by a learned Single Judge in W.P.No.23692/2012 (LR), disobedience whereof is alleged in the contempt petition; confirmed by the Division Bench in W.A.No.8735/2012 (LR) on 15.02.2019.¶28
High Court of Karnataka (learned Single Judge) · 23.07.2012
Prior proceeding
Writ Petition No.23692/2012 (LR) decided by a learned Single Judge on 23.07.2012 (Annexure-A).¶28
Prior proceeding
Writ Appeal No.8735/2012 (LR) preferred against the Single Judge's order; dismissed on 15.02.2019.¶31

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
SMT. SARASWATHI V W/O VISHWANATHA SHETTY (COMPLAINANT)¶10
Pruthviraj Shastry, G Balakrishna Shastry
respondent
MR. RAVI KUMAR M.R., THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, D.K. DISTRICT (ACCUSED NO.1)¶16
Namitha Mahesh B G
respondent
DR. RAJKUMAR KATHRI, PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE (ACCUSED NO.2)¶18
Namitha Mahesh B G

Coram

AI extract

K.SOMASHEKARauthor¶27
VENKATESH NAIK Tmember¶25

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Karnataka HC
Decided on: 22 Jan 2025 · January
Registered: 21 May 2020
Case no.: CCC/290/2020
CNR: KAHC010088982020
Topic: Contempt of Court
Bench: K.somashekar Venkatesh Naik T
Disposal: DROPPED
Case type: CCC

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from K.somashekar Venkatesh Naik T

Sri. Pradeep Kumar. H. S. Vs the State of Karnataka
21 Jan 2025
Sri T Krishnegowda Vs Smt Bhagyamma
21 Jan 2025
Smt Jayalakshmi v Vs Sri. Kayum Razak Dhanani
20 Jan 2025
Sri. Krishnappa H.M. Vs Sri. M. Mahadeva Prasad
22 Jan 2025
Sarvojana Seva Trust Vs Sri Srinivas IAS
22 Jan 2025
Mrs Ruhi Sultana Vs Dr J T Devaraju
22 Jan 2025

Cite this judgement

Smt. Saraswathi v. Vs Mr. Ravi Kumar M.R., CCC/290/2020 (KA), decided on 22 January 2025.

The High Court of Karnataka publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Cases cited2

S.Tirupati Rao vs. LingamaiahRelied on¶41
Pallav ShethReferred¶47

Open Authorities

Statutes3

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971Sections 11 and 12 · Section 20
Constitution of IndiaArticle 215

View all statutes

Procedural history3

Order dated 23.07.2012 passed by a learned Single Judge in W.P.No.23692/2012 (LR), disobedience whereof is alleged in the contempt petition; confirmed by the Division Bench in W.A.No.8735/2012 (LR) on 15.02.2019.High Court of Karnataka (learned Single Judge) · 23.07.2012
Writ Petition No.23692/2012 (LR) decided by a learned Single Judge on 23.07.2012 (Annexure-A).
Writ Appeal No.8735/2012 (LR) preferred against the Single Judge's order; dismissed on 15.02.2019.

View full history

Bench / Coram

K.SOMASHEKAR and VENKATESH NAIK T

Parties & counsel