Disposed¶54

P J Chandrashekhar v. Naveen Ballal

Karnataka HC16 Jan 2025CCC/964/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CCC No. 964 of 2022, High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (DB: K. Somashekar & Venkatesh Naik T JJ.), decided 16.01.2025 — contempt proceeding for alleged violation of interim order dated 23.06.2022 in WP No.1248/2022 (LB-RES) dropped; alternative remedy under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC for breach of injunction; parent writ proceeding pending; scope of contempt jurisdiction under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971; Jhareswar Prasad Paul v. Tarak Nath Ganguly (2002) 5 SCC 352 relied on; Amit Kumar Das v. Shrimati Hutheesingh Tagore Charitable Trust, 2024 SCC Online SC 83 referred by counsel; liberty to complainants to proceed in accordance with law.

What did the court decide?

Contempt proceeding dropped (petition held not entertainable); liberty reserved to the complainants to proceed further in accordance with law. ¶54

P J Chandrashekhar Vs Naveen Ballal — Contempt of Court | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Contempt proceeding dropped (petition held not entertainable); liberty reserved to the complainants to proceed further in accordance with law.

¶54

Issue for consideration

Whether the contempt proceeding initiated by the complainants against the respondent/accused for alleged deliberate and willful disobedience of the order dated 23.06.2022 passed in WP No.1248/2022 (LB-RES) survives for consideration. +1 more

¶26

Court's answer

The present contempt petition does not survive for consideration to proceed against the respondent/accused, and consequently the contempt proceeding is dropped.

¶54

Ratio / Principle

Keeping in view the aforesaid reliances (co-ordinate Bench orders in CCC No.703/2024 and CCC No.896/2023 and Jhareswar Prasad Paul v. Tarak Nath Ganguly, (2002) 5 SCC 352), Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and the pendency of the writ proceeding, contempt jurisdiction was not to be exercised — the complainants having the recourse of approaching the same Court for breach of injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC while the parent proceedings remain at large before the learned Single Judge.

¶54

Key takeaways

Liberty is open/reserved for the complainants to proceed further in accordance with law.ratio¶55

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Contempt Petition (CCC) under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act alleging wilful violation of the interim order dated 23.06.2022 of the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.1248/2022 (LB-RES) (inspection of construction against the sanctioned plan; restraint on constructing compound wall) — HELD: the parent writ proceeding being still pending before the learned Single Judge, and the complainants having the remedy to approach the same Court for breach of injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC, and contempt jurisdiction being confined to deliberate disobedience of the specific directions in the order and not extending to matters the order did not decide (Jhareswar Prasad Paul v. Tarak Nath Ganguly, (2002) 5 SCC 352; co-ordinate Bench orders in CCC No.703/2024 and CCC No.896/2023 kept in view; Section 2(b), Contempt of Courts Act, 1971), the contempt petition does not survive for consideration — contempt proceeding dropped; liberty reserved to the complainants to proceed in accordance with law.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:1821-DB CCC No. 964 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 964 OF 2022

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

P J CHANDRASHEKHAR

¶10

S/O P JANARDHANA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/A RAMATRIVIKRAMA NILAYA OPP MGM COLLEGE POST-KUNJIBETTU-576102 UDUPI DISTRICT.

¶11

P SUMANGALI

¶12

W/O P J CHANDRASHEKHAR Digitally signed AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS by SUMATHY R/A RAMATRIVIKRAMA NILAYA KANNAN OPP. MGM COLLEGE Location: HIGH POST-KUNJIBETTU-576102 COURT OF KARNATAKA UDUPI DISTRICT.

¶13

…COMPLAINANTS

¶14

(BY SRI. S K ACHARYA - ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

NAVEEN BALLAL S/O MADHAVA BALLAL AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/A DOOR NO.3-3-17 BEEDU MARG AMBALAPADY-576103 UDUPI DISTRICT

¶17

…ACCUSED

¶18

(BY SRI. V R BALARAJ - ADVOCATE)

¶19

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:1821-DB CCC No. 964 of 2022

¶20

THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, PRAYING TO INITIATE CONTEMPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED FOR DELIBERATELY AND INTENTIONALLY VIOLATING THE ORDER DATED 23.6.2022 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NO.1248/2022 (LB-RES) ON THE FILE OF THIS HON’BLE COURT AT ANNEXURE-A.

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

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

¶25

This contempt proceeding is initiated by

¶26

complainants against the respondent/accused for having deliberate and willful disobedience of the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in WP.No.1248/2022 (LB-RES) dated 23.06.2022 vide Annexure-A.

¶27

Learned counsel Sri S.K.Acharya for complainants and learned counsel Sri V.R.Balaraj for

¶28

respondent/accused are present.

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1821-DB CCC No. 964 of 2022

¶30

By the said order dated 23.06.2022, learned Single Judge directed Respondent No.2 to inspect the construction put up by the Respondent No.3 and submit a report whether the construction put up by the Respondent No. 3 is according to the plan sanctioned by it. It shall also report whether the Respondent No.3 has put up the construction in a larger area than what was proposed in the plan. Until then, the Respondent No. 3 is directed not to construct compound wall around his property.

¶31

Learned counsel for complainants has facilitated the reliance of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Amit Kumar Das, Joint Secretary, a Registered Society Vs. Shrimati Hutheesingh Tagore Charitable Trust reported 2024 SCC Online SC 83 . He also refers para No.14 of the judgment and submits that the said judgment is squarely applicable to the present case.

¶32

However, it is relevant to refer the order rendered

¶33

by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in

¶34

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC:1821-DB CCC No. 964 of 2022

¶36

CCC.No.703/2024 (Civil) dated 06.08.2024 wherein

¶37

the Court observed as under:

¶38

‘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.

¶39

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.’

¶40

Further, it is also relevant to refer the judgment 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:

¶41

‘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.

¶42

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.

¶43

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.’

¶44

However, it is relevant to refer the order rendered

¶45

by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Jhareswar

¶46

Prasad Paul v. Tarak Nath Ganguly reported in (2002)

¶47

¶48

NC: 2025:KHC:1821-DB CCC No. 964 of 2022

¶49

5 SCC 352 wherein at paragraph No.11 it is observed as under:

¶50

‘11. The purpose of contempt jurisdiction is to uphold the majesty and dignity of the courts of law, since the respect and authority commanded by the courts of law are the greatest guarantee to an ordinary citizen and the democratic fabric of society will suffer if respect for the judiciary is undermined. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 has been introduced under the statute for the purpose of securing the feeling of confidence of the people in general for true and proper administration of justice in the country. The power to punish for contempt of court is a special power vested under the Constitution in the courts of record and also under the statute. The power is special and needs to be exercised with care and caution. It should be used sparingly by the courts on being satisfied regarding the true effect of contemptuous conduct. It is to be kept in mind that the court exercising the jurisdiction to punish for contempt does not function as an original or appellate court for determination of the disputes between the parties. The contempt jurisdiction should be confined to the question whether there has been any deliberate disobedience of the order of the court and if the conduct of the party who is alleged to have committed such disobedience is contumacious. The court exercising contempt jurisdiction is not entitled to enter into questions which have not been dealt with and decided in the judgment or order, violation of which is alleged by the applicant. The court has to consider the direction issued in the judgment or order and not to consider the question as to what the judgment or order should have contained. At the cost of repetition, be it stated here that the court exercising contempt jurisdiction is primarily concerned with the question of contumacious conduct of the party, which is alleged to have committed deliberate default in complying with the directions in the judgment or order. If the judgment or order does not contain any specific direction regarding a matter or if there is any ambiguity in the directions issued therein then it will be better to direct the parties to approach the court which disposed of the matter for clarification of the order instead of the court exercising contempt jurisdiction taking upon itself the power to decide the original proceeding in a manner not dealt with by the court passing the judgment or order. If this limitation is borne in mind then criticisms which are sometimes levelled against the courts exercising contempt of court jurisdiction “that it has exceeded its powers in granting substantive relief and issuing a direction regarding the same without proper adjudication of the dispute” in its entirety can be avoided. This will also avoid multiplicity of proceedings because the party which is prejudicially affected by the judgment or order passed in the

¶51

¶52

NC: 2025:KHC:1821-DB CCC No. 964 of 2022

¶53

contempt proceeding and granting relief and issuing fresh directions is likely to challenge that order and that may give rise to another round of litigation arising from a proceeding which is intended to maintain the majesty and image of courts.’

¶54

Keeping in view the aforesaid reliances and Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and the writ proceeding which is pending for consideration, the present contempt petition do not survive for consideration to proceed against the respondent/accused. Consequently, the contempt proceeding is hereby dropped.

¶55

Liberty is open for complainants to proceed further in accordance with law.

¶56

SD/(K.SOMASHEKAR)

¶57

JUDGE

¶58

SD/(VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE

¶59

P J Chandrashekhar v. Naveen Ballal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P J Chandrashekhar v. Naveen Ballal

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 Harish T v Vs Sri Pradeep IAS

Dr.N Chandranath Singh Vs Sri. G.T Dinesh Kumar

Sri R Ravi Kumar Vs M B Rajesh Gowda

Sri G C Umesh Vs the State of Karnataka

Pushpa Vs P Pramila

Sri Hanumantharaya Vs Sri S M Gangadharaiah