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.

Venkatesh K Vs State of Karnataka — Contempt of Court | Karnataka HC (2026)

Home
Karnataka HC
2026
Venkatesh K Vs State of KarnatakaVenkatesh K v. State of Karnataka

Disposed¶36

Venkatesh K v. State of Karnataka

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Sections 11, 12

Karnataka HC16 Mar 2026CCC/484/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CCC No. 484 of 2025, High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, decided 16.03.2026; Coram: Vibhu Bakhru, CJ and C.M. Poonacha, J. Venkatesh K (complainant, through Suresh K.) v. State of Karnataka (pro forma respondent, through S.H. Raghavendra, AGA) and Manivannan P, Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority (accused, through Ananya Rai / Murguesh V. Charati). Civil contempt under Sections 11 and 12, Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, for alleged wilful disobedience of the Single Judge's order dated 29.10.2024 in W.P. No.9648/2024 (BDA). Representation disposed of by BDA endorsement dated 02.03.2026; complaint closed with liberty to pursue remedies against the endorsement. Disposition: disposed/closed; no sentence.

What did the court decide?

No contempt prosecution initiated and no sentence imposed; complaint closed with liberty preserved to the complainant to avail remedies against the endorsement dated 02.03.2026 in accordance with law.

Why is it important?

In view of the memo enclosing the endorsement dated 02.03.2026 disposing of the complainant's representation, the contempt complaint is closed. ¶36

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No contempt prosecution initiated and no sentence imposed; complaint closed with liberty preserved to the complainant to avail remedies against the endorsement dated 02.03.2026 in accordance with law.

Issue for consideration

Whether the accused (Manivannan P, Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority) wilfully disobeyed the order dated 29.10.2024 in Writ Petition No.9648/2024, warranting initiation of contempt prosecution and sentence of imprisonment.

Court's answer

In view of the memo enclosing the endorsement dated 02.03.2026 disposing of the complainant's representation, the contempt complaint is closed.

Ratio / Principle

It is clarified that the closure of the complaint will not preclude the complainant from availing of any remedies in respect of the endorsement dated 02.03.2026, albeit in accordance with law.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Sections 11, 12 - Civil Contempt Petition No. 484 of 2025 - Alleged wilful disobedience of order dated 29.10.2024 of learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.9648/2024 (BDA), by which the complainant was to make a representation within four weeks and the accused, Commissioner, BDA, was to consider it within four months of receipt - During hearing, counsel for accused handed over memo enclosing endorsement dated 02.03.2026 disposing of the complainant's representation - Held: complaint closed - Clarified that closure does not preclude the complainant from availing remedies against the endorsement dated 02.03.2026, in accordance with law.

A

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:15315-DB CCC No. 484 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 484 OF 2025

BETWEEN:

VENKATESH K

S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT NO.01, ALLAHAHALLI VILLAGE

OPP. TO NANDI GARDEN ANJANAPURA POST BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK

BANGALORE - 560 108

…COMPLAINANT

(BY SRI SURESH K., ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by VEERENDRA KUMAR K M Location: High Court of Karnataka

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT VIKAS SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001

…PRO FORMA RESPONDENT

MANIVANNAN P COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY KUMARAPARK WEST, GUTTAHALLI BANGALORE - 560 020

…ACCUSED

(BY SRI S.H. RAGHAVENDRA, AGA FOR R-1; MS. ANANYA RAI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI MURGUESH V. CHARATI, ADVOCATE FOR ACCUSED No.2)

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:15315-DB CCC No. 484 of 2025

HC-KAR

THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 PRAYING TO INITIATE PROSECUTION AGAINST THE ACCUSED FOR WILFUL DISOBEDIENCE OF THE COURT ORDER IN WRIT PETITION NO.9648/2024 DATED 29.10.2024, AT ANNEXURE-C, SENTENCE THE ACCUSED FOR IMPRISONMENT.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, 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. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

The complainant has filed the present complaint alleging willful disobedience of the order dated 29.10.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.9648/2024 (BDA), whereby the complainant was directed to make a representation within a period of four weeks from the date and the accused was directed to consider the same within four months from the date of receipt of such representation.

The learned counsel for the accused has handed over a memo enclosing therewith a copy of the endorsement dated 02.03.2026, disposing of the complainant's representation.

3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:15315-DB CCC No. 484 of 2025

HC-KAR

In view of the above, the complaint is closed.

We, however, clarify that this order will not preclude the complainant from availing of any remedies in respect of the

endorsement dated 02.03.2026, albeit in accordance with law.

Sd/(VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE

KMV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11

Issues for consideration

1 issue framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the accused (Manivannan P, Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority) wilfully disobeyed the order dated 29.10.2024 in Writ Petition No.9648/2024, warranting initiation of contempt prosecution and sentence of imprisonment.¶26
The court held
In view of the memo enclosing the endorsement dated 02.03.2026 disposing of the complainant's representation, the contempt complaint is closed.ratio¶36

Statutes considered

1 provisions across 1 enactments

AI extract

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971Sections 11 and 12¶26

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Prior proceeding
By order dated 29.10.2024 in Writ Petition No.9648/2024 (BDA), the learned Single Judge directed the complainant to make a representation within four weeks and the accused to consider it within four months from receipt.¶31
Prior proceeding
During the contempt proceedings, learned counsel for the accused handed over a memo enclosing a copy of the endorsement dated 02.03.2026 disposing of the complainant's representation.¶32

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
Venkatesh K, S/o Late Krishnappa, aged about 45 years, R/at No.01, Allahahalli Village, Anjanapura Post, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore - 560 108 (Complainant)¶11
Suresh K.
respondent
State of Karnataka, by its Secretary, Department of Urban Development, Vikas Soudha, Bengaluru - 560 001 (Pro forma Respondent / R-1)¶19
S.H. Raghavendra
respondent
Manivannan P, Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority, Kumarpark West, Guttahalli, Bangalore - 560 020 (Accused No.2 / R-2)¶21
Ananya Rai, Murguesh V. Charati

Coram

AI extract

Vibhu Bakhru, Chief Justiceauthor¶30
C.M. Poonacha, Judgemember¶28

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Karnataka HC
Decided on: 16 Mar 2026 · March
Registered: 23 Apr 2025
Case no.: CCC/484/2025
CNR: KAHC010281722025
Topic: Contempt of Court
Bench: C.m. Poonacha
Disposal: DISPOSED
Case type: 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

Sri Lokesh M Vs the Regional Manager
13 Mar 2026
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sri Byregowda Since Deceased by Lr
13 Mar 2026
Smt. Manorama P. Rao Vs S. Prabhuswami
13 Mar 2026
Sri. Shankar N Vs Sri. Sajeeth v J
16 Mar 2026
B S Venkatesh Vs State of Karnataka
16 Mar 2026
Sri Suresh Chand Khabia Vs Smt Ashwini G
16 Mar 2026

Cite this judgement

Venkatesh K v. State of Karnataka, CCC/484/2025 (KA), decided on 16 March 2026.

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

Statutes1

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971Sections 11 and 12

View all statutes

Procedural history2

By order dated 29.10.2024 in Writ Petition No.9648/2024 (BDA), the learned Single Judge directed the complainant to make a representation within four weeks and the accused to consider it within four months from receipt.
During the contempt proceedings, learned counsel for the accused handed over a memo enclosing a copy of the endorsement dated 02.03.2026 disposing of the complainant's representation.

View full history

Bench / Coram

Vibhu Bakhru, Chief Justice and C.M. Poonacha, Judge

Parties & counsel