Allowed

Smt. M.Sreedevi, v. Sri. P.V.C. Kumar

Telangana HC25 Apr 2023CC/109/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt petition under Section 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the court found the respondent contumacious for refusing to vacate premises ordered under a decree dated 15.02.2019. The court imposed civil imprisonment and a fine, directing the petitioner to provide subsistence allowance.

What did the court decide?

Respondent sentenced to civil imprisonment for six months and ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- within four weeks.

Smt. M.Sreedevi, Vs Sri. P.V.C. Kumar — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[321s ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE^{STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD}

¶3

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI

¶6

CONTEMPT CASE NO: 109 OF 2020

¶7

(Contempt case under Sections^'10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act to punish the respondents herein for willfully violating the Orders of the High Court dated 15-02-2019^passed in S.A.No.38^{of 2019)}

¶8

Between:

¶9

Smt.M.Sreedevi, W/o. Sri. M.Venkata^{Ramaiah,aged about76 years' Occ} Housewife, FJo. H.No. 3-1 10, Maruthi Nagar,^{Malkajgiri, Hyderabad 500 047.}

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

Sri P.V.C. Kumar, S/o. Sri. P.S.Murthy,^{Aged about 50 years, Occ Business,Fl/o-} H.No.15-35/2, Rajanagar Colony, Old Miryalaguda,^{Malkajgiri, Hyderabad 500 047.}

¶13

...RESPONDENT

¶14

Counsel for the Petitioner : SMT^K.PALLAVI

¶15

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI SRINIVASA^{RAO MAOIRAJU}

¶16

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶17

THE tION OURABI,E DR.JUSTICE G.RAI)IIA^RANI

¶18

C ONTEMPT CASE No.109 OF^20z_!l

¶19

ORDI]R:

¶20

This Petrtion I llled Lrndcl Section l0 to^{12 ol'Con crnpt of Clourls Act,} 1971 to punish rhe^{1e rpondcnt hcrcin rvhois the appellant in t rc Ser:ondAppeal for} deliberately anrl uill ir ly^{floutingthe orders of this Court lr:j.A.No.38 ol 2019} dated t5.02.20 It)^{pas e,-1} by^{the I Ion'ble JusticeSri B.Siva Sarrk;tral{ao.}

¶21

The resp,rncier rerein flled S.A.No.38 of^{2019 agairst tht:} .judgment^and decree dated 07.0:2^{)18 in A.S.No l25 of2018 dated 10.1(.20ltlpassed by the} VIII Additional I)ist irt and Scssiotrs.ludge,^{L.B.Nagar,R,rngaReddy District} confirming the .jutlgn ent and^{dccree in in O.S.No.468of 20 -] pa:isedby the VII} Additional Seni,rr^('it il .ludge, l..B.Nagar,^{RangaReddy District}

¶22

This Coutt rvh lc dismissing^tl-re Second^{Appealat th(: :tageof admisslon} directed 1he responde rt^{hcrein, rvhois the appellant-tenant ir t'.A.No.38 of 2019} to vacate the^plerr is, s^{u,ithin l0 months time from the dart: of passing of the} judgment on l5 02 lt l() ic. by 10.11.2019 after recordrng an oral^{undertakingof} the counscl u'ho^{rcr-1r.r st} ed^{lbr such time to secur'ealtcmativeac cot nmodationand} to deposit use and^{ocr upalion charges ol'Rs.10,000/- from01 0 .2(119 onwards in}

¶23

!.-----...."-

¶24

¶25

D|.GRR, l cc 709 2020

¶26

the bank account of the landlord till vacating the premises by 5th of^every succeeding month and to give an undertaking not to allow any third^party into the premises and to vacate in the meantime, otherwise liable for contempt. It was also made clear that the appellant tenant should not alter the premises and should not allow any third party and must vacate the premises on or before the time^granted and if failed to comply any of the conditions, the appellant - tenant was liable for action to be initiated under contempt of the court, without^prejudice to the^right of the respondent -tenant after efflux of time fixed. The security deposit, if^{any, was} directed to be adjusted at the time of vacating the^premises

¶27

The petitioner filed an afhdavit in supporl of the^petition submitting^{that the} petitioner (landlord) issued a notice to the respondent on 18.11.2019 reminding the respondent for compliance of the orders of the court to^vacate the^{premises by} 30.11.2019 and the same was duly served. Furlher, though the^period of l0 months granted by this Court lapsed on 30.11.2019 itself, the^{respondenthad not} vacated the premises till date. Furlher, in order to harass the^{petitioner, who was} an old aged lady of 76 years of age, the respondent filed^{an applicationin the} Second Appeal vide I.A.No.3 of 2019 seeking further 6 months^{extension. The act} on the part of the respondent would amount to contempt of the court^{order dated} 15.02.2019. The respondent was bent upon to harass the^{petitioner in} all^aspects

¶28

¶29

Dt.GRR, J cc 109 2020

¶30

{

¶31

¶32

and he had no rcsrp( :t towards the orders^{of the court and'r'r' s continuingin the} propefty of the petit :iler inspite of the brders^{of the court arrd pr;.yed the courtto} come to its r.es,:ue^ar d to^{punishthe respondentlor not implement ng the ordersof} the couft^passeC in S A.No.38^{of 2019 dated 15.02.201!t.}

¶33

Heard Nls.l,l.I allavi, leamed counsel^{for the pelitionerNotice was served} on the respon<lenl^{e t<[ he u-as represeutedby the learnedcc un:iel Sri Madiraju} Srinivasa Rao

¶34

The learrrcd t :unsel for the respondent requested to^{ptst the matter after} vacation. But, houi v,:r considering that he did not choose^{o file his counterand} was taking time onl r to prolong the tnatter without compl1^{ing the orders of this} Courl contrary to th : rnderlaking given by him through his crrunsel to vacate the premises within 10; ronths i.e. by 30.11.2019, but reported to te^{r:ontinuingin the} premises deliberatel ' llouting the orders of this Court passet irrS.,.No.38 of 2019 dated 15.02.2019, u rt:rein he was also wamed that ht'was^{lr:ble for actionto be} initiated undel co ntt mpt of courl if not vacated the^premises by the^{said date, it is} considered ht trr r1low the petition sentencing the r,:sltondent to^simple imprisonment for a erm of six (06) months and to^pay a^firre of^{Rs.2,000/-within} four (04) weeks fior today.

Ot.GRR,I cc 709 2020

7 In the result, the Contempt Case is allowed sentencing the respondent to

¶41

civil imprisonment for a term of six (06) months and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/within four (04) weeks from today

¶42

As required under Rule 32 (1) of the Contempt of Court Rules, 1980, the respondent-contemnor shall be entitled to subsistence allowance during the period of detention in civil prison. The subsistence allowance for the respondentcontemnor is fixed at Rs.150/- per day. The petitioner shall deposit the amount for the period of detention of the contemnor.

¶43

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending in this petition, if any, shall

¶44

stand closed.

¶45

SD/.T.SRINI AS DEPUTY REGIS R //TRUE COPY//

¶46

SECTION FICER

¶47

To, 't.SriP.V.C.Kumar,S/o.Sri.P.S.Murthy,Rl/o.HNo15-35/2,RajanagarColony' Old Mirvalaquda,^{IVIalkaigiri,Hyderabad500 047.}

¶48

1. One Ci to^{-s&K PALLAVI Advocate} [oPUC]

¶49

il; cc io sni.^{sruNlvASA RAo MADIRAJU AdvocatetoPUCl}

¶50

Two CD CoPies.

BSK

{ I t

HIGH COURI

DATED:2510t 12023

ORDER

./a
1" -j i;i ) €
i"
,',' ('
I
i.! I 2 JUt,l 2$8 I
- * ...i'
' ':. .l
'2'
t: i-'

¶58

CC.No.109 o 2020

¶59

ALLOWING^"HE CONTEMPT^CASE.

¶60

J, #.F

Smt. M.Sreedevi, v. Sri. P.V.C. Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. M.Sreedevi, v. Sri. P.V.C. Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Akuthota Krishnaiah Vs a.D.B.Rama Lingaiah

Mrs. Delphine Stracey Vs Smt. Santosh Murlidhar

Bibin Prashad,Narsing Prashad and Another Vs Smt.Anasuya and 17 Others

Smt. M.Sreedevi, Vs Sri. M.Krishna Kumar

Smt. M.Sreedevi, Vs J.Yadagiri

A Praveen Reddy Vs Mr. D. ragulu