Disposed¶44

Mr C K Thomas v. Mrs Gowramma

Karnataka HC17 Jan 2025CCC/893/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: civil contempt; CCC No. 893 of 2022; High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru; Article 215 of Constitution of India; Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act; breach of ad-interim order; status quo direction dated 24-3-2022 in W.P. No.6610 of 2022 (GM-CPC); main writ petition pending; Jhareswar Prasad Paul v. Tarak Nath Ganguly, (2002) 5 SCC 352; Co-ordinate Bench CCC No.1237 of 2023 (CIVIL); contempt petition disposed of as not entertained; liberty to approach the Court if need arises. Relevant to the question whether contempt proceedings can be entertained for alleged breach of an interim/status quo order while the main proceedings are pending.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition disposed of as not entertained; liberty granted to the complainant to approach the Court, if need arises. ¶44

Mr C K Thomas Vs Mrs Gowramma — Contempt of Court | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:1894-DB CCC No. 893 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.893 OF 2022

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MR. C. K. THOMAS S/O. LATE V. K. KOSHY AGED 89 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.8A CHIKKABELLANDUR VILLAGE VARTHUR HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK BENGALURU - 560 035.

¶10

…COMPLAINANT

¶11

(BY SRI NITIN RAMESH., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by MOUNESHWARAPPA NAGARATHNA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

MRS. GOWRAMMA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS W/O. P. C. MANJUNATHA RESIDING AT GUNJUR PALLAYA (NEAR MARAMMA TEMPLE) GUNJUR POST, VARTHUR HOBLI BENGALURU - 560 087.

¶15

MR. NANDEESH AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS S/O. MR. P. C. MANJUNATHA RESIDING AT GUNJUR PALLAYA (NEAR MARAMMA TEMPLE) GUNJUR POST, VARTHUR HOBLI BENGALURU - 560 087.

¶16

…ACCUSED

¶17

(BY SRI N. S. BHAT, ADVOCATE)

¶18

¶19

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:1894-DB CCC No. 893 of 2022

¶21

THIS CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, PRAYING TO PROSECUTE THE ACCUSED FOR HAVING COMMITTED THE ACTS PUNISHABLE UNDER THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT AND KINDLY ENFORCE THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ORDER DATED 24.3.2022 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NO.6610 OF 2022 AT ANNEXURE-A.

¶22

THIS CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR

¶24

and

¶25

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

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

¶28

This contempt proceedings has been initiated against the interim order dated 24-3-2022 passed by a learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.6610 of 2022 (GM-CPC).

¶29

Sri Nitin Ramesh, learned counsel for the complainant, and Sri N.S. Bhat, learned counsel for the accused, are physically present before the Court.

¶30

On going through the order, it is evident that thereby ad-interim relief is granted and the parties are directed to maintain status quo . The breach of the aforesaid order is alleged. The proceedings of the main writ petition are pending.

¶31

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:1894-DB CCC No. 893 of 2022

¶33

A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CCC No.1237 of 2023 (CIVIL) dated 26-3-2024, at paragraph Nos.3 to 5, has observed as under:

¶34

"3. When the order is an interim order, by its very nature it does not determine rights of the parties finally. There are no trappings of finality in the order. In the aforesaid view, this Court is not inclined to entertain the contempt petition and it is not persuaded to exercise the power of contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

¶35

4. It will be open for the complainant to raise all contentions and work out its rights and remedies in the main proceedings in accordance with law.

¶36

5. Accordingly, the contempt petition stands disposed of as not entertained."

¶37

Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of JHARESWAR PRASAD PAUL AND ANOTHER v. SRI TARAK

¶38

NATH GANGULY AND OTHERS reported in (2002) 5 SCC 352 , has addressed the issues relating to Article 215 of the Constitution of India and at paragraph No.11, it has observed in detail in respect of initiation of contempt proceedings when the main proceedings are pending.

¶39

¶40

NC: 2025:KHC:1894-DB CCC No. 893 of 2022

¶41

Considering that the main writ petition is still pending

¶42

before this Court and in the light of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Co-ordinate Bench cited above, this Court is not inclined to entertain this contempt petition. Accordingly, the contempt petition is disposed of as not entertained.

¶43

At this stage, Sri Nitin Ramesh, learned counsel for the complainant, seeks liberty to approach the Court, if need arises.

¶44

Liberty, as sought for, is granted.

¶45

Sd/(K.SOMASHEKAR) JUDGE

¶46

Sd/(VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE

¶47

KVK

¶48

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2

Mr C K Thomas v. Mrs Gowramma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr C K Thomas v. Mrs Gowramma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri G C Umesh Vs the State of Karnataka

P J Chandrashekhar Vs Naveen Ballal

Pushpa Vs P Pramila

Shobha C Vs Vineet Pandey

Vinoth Kumar S Vs Sri Maruthi B

Sri.Kenchappa Vs Sri.Mallikarjuna