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 a Alice Vs Sri Pankaj Kumar Pandey — Contempt of Court | Karnataka HC (2026)

Home
Karnataka HC
2026
Smt a Alice Vs Sri Pankaj Kumar PandeySmt a Alice v. Sri Pankaj Kumar Pandey

Disposed¶39

Smt a Alice v. Sri Pankaj Kumar Pandey

Karnataka HC28 Jan 2026CCC/1397/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court civil contempt; CCC No. 1397 of 2025; complainant Smt A Alice, retired Senior Assistant, KPTCL; accused Sri Pankaj Kumar Pandey, Managing Director, KPTCL; willful disobedience; non-implementation of order dated 20.02.2024 in Writ Petition No.33653/2014 (S-RES); quashing of endorsement dated 22.01.2014 (Annexure-E); 90 days encashment of privileged leave forfeited; interest at 8% per annum from 01.05.2013; Superintendent Engineer, BESCOM; earlier order dated 04.11.2024 in CCC No.1016/2024 (CIVI); Official Memorandum dated 27.01.2026; payment within three weeks; complaint closed; liberty to revive if payment not made within four weeks; Sections 11 and 12, Contempt of Courts Act, 1971; Article 215, Constitution of India; Bench: Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C.M. Poonacha; decided 28 January 2026.

What did the court decide?

Complaint closed, reserving liberty to the complainant to revive the same if payment is not made within four weeks from the date of the order.

Why is it important?

Taking note of the memo and the Official Memorandum dated 27.01.2026 whereby payment was ordered in terms of the Court's order, with counsel submitting that payments would be made within three weeks, the Court treated compliance as set in motion and closed the complaint. ¶35

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Complaint closed, reserving liberty to the complainant to revive the same if payment is not made within four weeks from the date of the order.

Issue for consideration

Whether the accused, Sri Pankaj Kumar Pandey, Managing Director, KPTCL, is guilty of contempt of this Court in not implementing the order dated 20.02.2024 in WP No.33653/2014 passed by the learned Single Judge and the order dated 04.11.2024 in CCC No.1016/2024 (CIVI). +1 more

Ratio / Principle

Taking note of the memo and the Official Memorandum dated 27.01.2026 whereby payment was ordered in terms of the Court's order, with counsel submitting that payments would be made within three weeks, the Court treated compliance as set in motion and closed the complaint.

Key takeaways

The complaint is closed, reserving liberty to the complainant to revive the same in the event payment is not made within a period of four weeks from the date of the order.ratio¶39

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil contempt (CCC No. 1397 of 2025) under Sections 11 and 12, Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 r/w Article 215 of the Constitution of India — complaint by a retired KPTCL employee alleging willful disobedience of the order dated 20.02.2024 in Writ Petition No.33653/2014 (S-RES), which had quashed the endorsement dated 22.01.2014 (Annexure-E) and directed payment of 90 days' encashment of forfeited privileged leave with interest at 8% per annum from 01.05.2013 till date of payment, and of the order dated 04.11.2024 in CCC No.1016/2024 (CIVI) — accused (Managing Director, KPTCL) filed a memo with Official Memorandum dated 27.01.2026 ordering payment in terms of the Court's order, with an undertaking that payments would be made within three weeks — Division Bench (order per Justice C.M. Poonacha, signed also by Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru) closed the complaint, reserving liberty to the complainant to revive it if payment is not made within four weeks.

A

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:4645-DB CCC No. 1397 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 1397 OF 2025

BETWEEN:

SMT A ALICE AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, W/O M.A. CHANDRAPPA GOWDA, EARLIER, WORKING AS A SENIOR ASSISTANT, KARNATAKA TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD SINCE RETIRED AND R/A NO. 52/127, SKANDA, 8TH MAIN, 14TH CROSS BTM LAYOUT 2ND STAGE, BANGALORE - 560076

Digitally signed by NIRMALA DEVI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

…COMPLAINANT

(BY MS. SUVARNA LAKSHMI M.L, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI PANKAJ KUMAR PANDEY MANAGING DIRECTOR, KPTCL, CORPORATE OFFICE, KAVERI BHAVAN, BENGALURU - 560001.

…ACCUSED

(BY SRI. SHIRISH KRISHNA, ADVOCATE)

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:4645-DB CCC No. 1397 of 2025

HC-KAR

THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11 AND 12 THE, CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT, 1971, R/W ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, BY THE COMPLAINANT, WHEREIN PRAYING TO INITIATE ACTION AGAINST THE ACCUSED FOR CONTEMPT OF THIS HONBLE COURT IN NOT IMPLEMENTING THE ORDER DATED 20.02.2024 IN WP NO.33653/2014 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND ORDER DATED 04.11.2024 OF THIS HONBLE COURT IN CCC NO.1016/2024 (CIVI).

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

ORAL ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA)

The present complaint is filed alleging willful disobedience of

the order dated 20.02.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.33653/2014 (S-RES), the operative part of which, reads as under:

(i) The writ petition is allowed;

(ii) The impugned endorsement dated 22.01.2014 issued by the respondent vide Annexure-E is hereby quashed;

3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:4645-DB CCC No. 1397 of 2025

HC-KAR

(iii) The petitioner is reserved with liberty to make a fresh representation to the Superintendent Engineer, BESCOM and seek 90 days encashment of privileged leave forfeited.

(iv) If such representation is made, the concerned authority to take cognizance of the order passed by this Court and shall pay 90 days of encashment of privileged leave which was forfeited along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from 01.05.2013 till the date of payment;

(v) The pending interlocutory application, if any, does not survive for consideration and stands disposed of accordingly.

Learned counsel for the accused has filed a memo along with a copy of the Official Memorandum dated 27.01.2026, whereunder the payment is ordered to be made in terms of the order passed by this Court. The learned counsel for the accused submits that in terms of the Official Memorandum dated 27.01.2026 the payments would be made within a period of three weeks from date.

4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:4645-DB CCC No. 1397 of 2025

HC-KAR

In view of the aforementioned, the compliant is closed reserving liberty to the complainant to revive the same in the event, the payment is not made within a period of four weeks from date.

Sd/(VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE

ND List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39

Issues for consideration

2 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the accused, Sri Pankaj Kumar Pandey, Managing Director, KPTCL, is guilty of contempt of this Court in not implementing the order dated 20.02.2024 in WP No.33653/2014 passed by the learned Single Judge and the order dated 04.11.2024 in CCC No.1016/2024 (CIVI).¶20
2.
Whether, in view of the Official Memorandum dated 27.01.2026 ordering payment in terms of the Court's order and the undertaking that payments would be made within three weeks, the contempt complaint should be closed.medium confidence¶35
The court held
Taking note of the memo and the Official Memorandum dated 27.01.2026 whereby payment was ordered in terms of the Court's order, with counsel submitting that payments would be made within three weeks, the Court treated compliance as set in motion and closed the complaint.ratio¶35

Statutes considered

2 provisions across 2 enactments

AI extract

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

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 20.02.2024 in Writ Petition No.33653/2014 (S-RES) of the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition, quashing the endorsement dated 22.01.2014 (Annexure-E) and directing payment of 90 days' encashment of forfeited privileged leave with interest at 8% per annum from 01.05.2013 till date of payment; its non-implementation is alleged as contempt.¶26
Learned Single Judge, High Court of Karnataka · 20.02.2024
Prior proceeding
Writ Petition No.33653/2014 (S-RES): writ petition allowed; impugned endorsement dated 22.01.2014 (Annexure-E) quashed.¶28
Prior proceeding
Liberty reserved to the petitioner to make a fresh representation to the Superintendent Engineer, BESCOM seeking 90 days' encashment of privileged leave forfeited.¶32
Prior proceeding
Direction that upon such representation the concerned authority pay 90 days' encashment of forfeited privileged leave with interest at 8% per annum from 01.05.2013 till date of payment.¶33
Prior proceeding
Earlier contempt proceeding: order dated 04.11.2024 of this Court in CCC No.1016/2024 (CIVI), non-implementation of which is also alleged in the present complaint.¶20
Prior proceeding
Accused filed a memo with copy of Official Memorandum dated 27.01.2026 whereby payment was ordered to be made in terms of the Court's order.¶35
Prior proceeding
Counsel for the accused submitted that in terms of the Official Memorandum dated 27.01.2026 the payments would be made within three weeks.¶35

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
Smt A Alice¶10
MS. SUVARNA LAKSHMI M.L
respondent
Sri Pankaj Kumar Pandey, Managing Director, KPTCL¶15
SRI. SHIRISH KRISHNA

Coram

AI extract

Vibhu Bakhrumember¶6
C.M. Poonachaauthor¶24

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Karnataka HC
Decided on: 28 Jan 2026 · January
Registered: 30 Oct 2025
Case no.: CCC/1397/2025
CNR: KAHC010707322025
Topic: Contempt of Court
Bench: C.m. Poonacha
Disposal: DISPOSED
Case type: CCC (Civil Contempt Petition)

Similar cases

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

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from C.m. Poonacha

Obinna Jeremiah Okafor Vs Foreigners Regional Registration Office (Frro)
27 Jan 2026
M/S Bharat Mining and Engineering Co. Vs the State of Karnataka
27 Jan 2026
Rachan Kumar M Vs the Secretary
27 Jan 2026
M/S Professional Global Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Karnataka
28 Jan 2026
Sri H N Sridhar Vs Sri K M Sundarraj Shetty
28 Jan 2026
Sri. G. R. Nithin, Vs Sri.Doreswamy
28 Jan 2026

Cite this judgement

Smt a Alice v. Sri Pankaj Kumar Pandey, CCC/1397/2025 (KA), decided on 28 January 2026.

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

Statutes2

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

View all statutes

Procedural history7

Order dated 20.02.2024 in Writ Petition No.33653/2014 (S-RES) of the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition, quashing the endorsement dated 22.01.2014 (Annexure-E) and directing payment of 90 days' encashment of forfeited privileged leave with interest at 8% per annum from 01.05.2013 till date of payment; its non-implementation is alleged as contempt.Learned Single Judge, High Court of Karnataka · 20.02.2024
Writ Petition No.33653/2014 (S-RES): writ petition allowed; impugned endorsement dated 22.01.2014 (Annexure-E) quashed.
Liberty reserved to the petitioner to make a fresh representation to the Superintendent Engineer, BESCOM seeking 90 days' encashment of privileged leave forfeited.

View full history

Bench / Coram

Vibhu Bakhru and C.M. Poonacha

Parties & counsel