This is a contempt case where the respondent tenant failed to vacate premises ordered by the High Court on 15.02.2019 within 10 months. Despite notice and undertaking, the respondent continued occupation. The Court allowed the petition and sentenced the respondent to civil imprisonment.
Sentence to simple imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 2,000.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
I
[321s ]
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI
CONTEMPT CASE NO:'108 OF 2020
Contempt case under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act 1971 to punish the Respondent herein for deliberately, willfully flouting the orders dated 15-02-2019 passed in S.A.No. 4012019.
Between:
Smt. M. Sreedevi, W/o. Sri. M.Venkata Ramaiah, aged about 76 years, Occ Housewife, R/o. H-No. 3-110, Maruthi Nagar, Malkajgiri, Hyderabad 500 047
...PETITIONER
AND
J.Yadagiri, S/o. Sri. Narsimha, Aged about 54 years, Occ Business, Business Address Laxmi Paper lvlerchant, 23-88111, R.K.Nagar, Anand Bagh 'X' Roads, Malkajgiri, Hyderabad 500 047.
...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. K PALLAVI
Counsel for the Respondent: SRINIVASA RAO MADIRAJU
The Court made the following: ORDER
.I'HE HONOUR..,\I}LE I)IT.JT,S]-ICE C. ITAD}IA RANI
coNT'ENrPr'cAsr. x6.ros oF zozo
otrDEn:
fhis I'etition is tlled under Scction l0 to l2 ol Contempt ol Courts Act,
197 I to punish the responclenl hcrcin who is the appellant in the Second Appeal lbr deliberatell' and willlulli, Ilouting thc orders of this Court in S.A.No.40 of 20 I!)datcd 15.02.2019 passcd bv tlrc llon'blc Justice Sri [].Siva Sankara Rao
\ \
)
Dr.GRR, J cc 108 2020
allou arry third partv into the prc'rniscs and to ',,acatc in the rneantinr.-. othcr\ isr' liablc lor conternpt- It u as also rnadc clcar that thc appellant tcrriint shoLrld not alter the prernises and should not allow an_"- third part1, and lrusl vacat(: thc prenriscs on or bcfixq' thc tirnc .rlrantcd and il'Iailcd to cor-rrplf anv ol'thc conditions, the appellant - tenant rvas liablc ibr action to be initiateti uridcr contempt ol thc courl, without pre.judicc to thc right of the respondent Ia1riIll alter elflux ol timc ilxed. l-lie sccurity deposit, il any, w'as directed to he adjustcd at thc lirne olvacatiug the prenriscs.
l
Dt.GRR, l cc 108 2020
I
( I
its rescue and to punish the respondent lbr not inrplementing the orders ol the couft passed in S.A.No.40 ol'2019 datcd I i.0l.l0 i 9
\
"tr'rrrr)* 8. As requircd under Rure 32 (r)or-the conre.rpt orcourt Rures, r9g0. the respondent-conterlnor shall bc entitred to subsistence allowance during rhe period of detention in ci'il prison. The subsistence allowance for the respondent-corltem,or is llxcd at Rs. 150/- per day. The petitioner shall deposit the amount lor the pcriod of detcntion of the contemnor.
As a sequel, miscellancous petitions pending in this petition, if any, shall stand closed.
Sd/- B. SATYAVATHI DEPUry REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// 4'/ sEcroN drrrceR
To,
nr/'e/
I 4
HIGH COURT
DATED:25l0412023
I
ORDER
CC.No.108 of 2020
1l:t
, <br>.$
s<br>dll
I b p//
trctH rt
CLOSING THE
CONTEMPT CASE
t/L.
<br>J
,
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the respondent is liable to be punished for contempt of court for willfully flouting the order to vacate the premises.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt. M. Sreedevi
J. Yadagiri
G. Radha Rani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
