Smt Jayalakshmi v Vs Sri. Kayum Razak Dhanani

SMT JAYALAKSHMI V W/O LATE K. RAMANNA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT NO. 83, 4^TH MAIN BTM 2^ND STAGE, N.S. PALYA VTC, BANGALORE SOUTH BANNERGHATTA RAOD BANGALORE 560 007.

¶11

…COMPLAINANT

¶12

(BY SRI. SADANAND G SHASTRI - ADVOCATE)

¶13

Digitally signed by SUMATHY KANNAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

AND:

¶15

SRI. KAYUM RAZAK DHANANI DIRECTOR M/S LIBERTY RESTAURANT PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS OFFICE AT: NO.1803 THE AFFAIRES PLOT NO.9 18^TH FLOOR, PLOT NO.9 SECTOR-17, PALM BEACH ROAD SANPADA, NAVI, MUMBAI-400705.

¶16

2 -

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:2247-DB CCC No. 53 of 2023

¶18

ALSO AT: VAN GOHS GARDEN UNIT NO.0502, KASTURBA ROAD CROSS BANGALORE, MUNICIPAL NO.30 WARD NO.76, BANGALORE NORTH BANGALORE-560001.

¶19

…ACCUSED

¶20

(BY SRI. R. KIRAN - ADVOCATE)

¶21

THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 & 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT AND RULE 11 OF THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (CONTEMPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS) RULES 1981, PRAYING TO PUNISH THE ACCUSED UNDER SECTION 12(1) OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW FOR THE OFFENCE OF CONTEMPT OF COURT FOR COMMITTING WILLFUL DISOBEDIENCE OF THE INTERIM ORDER OF THIS HON’BLE COURT DATED 15.12.2022 PASSED IN W.P.NO.23310/2022(GM-CPC) DESCRIBED AT ANNEXURE-A AND PREVENT THE ACCUSED FROM CONTINUING THE BREACH OF THE ORDER OF THE HON’BLE COURT DATED 15.12.2022 PASSED IN W.P.NO.23310/2022(GM-CPC) VIDE ANNEXURE-A INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO A RELIEF OF JURISDICTIONAL POLICE PROTECTION OVER SCHEDULE ‘C’ PROPERTY.

¶22

THIS CCC, COMING ON FOR HEAR BEFORE CHARGE, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR AND

¶24

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

¶25

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:2247-DB CCC No. 53 of 2023

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

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

¶28

This Contempt proceeding is filed in view of disobedience of the interim order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.23310/2022 dated 15.12.2022.

¶29

By the said order, the learned Single Judge had directed the respondent to maintain status quo in so far as the subject property, namely the suit schedule ‘C’ property until the next date of hearing.

¶30

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶31

Apart from the present proceedings, an original suit in O.S.No.6864/2022 is pending adjudication between the plaintiff

¶32

/ complainant herein and the defendant / accused herein. In view of the fact that disobedience of a status quo order granted by a learned Single Judge of this Court is under challenge in this contempt petition, it is deemed appropriate to refer to an order rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CCC.No.703/2024 dated 26.03.2024 wherein the Court has observed thus:

¶33

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:2247-DB CCC No. 53 of 2023

¶34

2. This Court is not inclined to invoke and exercise the jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, in view that the petitioner has the remedy to approach the same Court for breach of injunction under the provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908.

¶35

3. Only on this ground without going into the merits and reserving liberty for the petitioner to avail the said recourse, the present petition is not entertainable and it stands disposed of.

¶36

Further, it is also relevant to refer an order rendered by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CCC.No.896/2023 (Civil) dated 02.04.2024 wherein the Court observed as under:

¶37

“2. The present contempt petition is in respect of the order dated 08.09.2021 passed by learned Single Judge in the pending Writ Petition No.16130 of 2021.

¶38

3. Evidently, the above order is interim order and that the parent proceedings are at large before learned Single Judge on merits. In that view, the contempt proceedings are not liable to be entertained.

¶39

5. Marking compliance of the direction, the Court records the statement made by learned advocate for respondent No.1. Even otherwise, the contempt proceedings are not entertainable and they are disposed of accordingly.”

¶40

5 -

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC:2247-DB CCC No. 53 of 2023

¶42

Therefore, keeping in view the above decisions, and also having regard to Section 2(b) and Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 the present contempt petition does not survive for consideration to proceed against the respondent/accused. Consequently, the contempt petition

¶43

is hereby dropped.

¶44

SD/(K.SOMASHEKAR)

¶45

JUDGE

¶46

SD/(VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE

¶47

KS

Smt Jayalakshmi v. Vs Sri. Kayum Razak Dhanani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Jayalakshmi v. Vs Sri. Kayum Razak Dhanani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr C K Thomas Vs Mrs Gowramma

Shobha C Vs Vineet Pandey

Vinoth Kumar S Vs Sri Maruthi B

Sri v Ravikumar Vs State of Karnataka

S Umesh Rao Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Raghupathi Vs Dr Selvamani R