Allowed

Bairi Rakesh Kumar v. Perumalla Sammaiah

Telangana HC21 Apr 2023CC/2168/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this contempt case, the Telangana High Court held that the respondent was guilty of wilful disobedience by failing to furnish an ordered bank guarantee before the trial court. Consequently, the petitioner's application was allowed, and the respondent was sentenced to simple imprisonment and fined.

What did the court decide?

Respondent convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for 15 days and fined Rs. 5,000.

Bairi Rakesh Kumar Vs Perumalla Sammaiah — Contempt of Court | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

t^320E I

¶2

I I i \

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

CC NO: 2'168 OF 2022

CRP NO. 1068 ot 2021

Contempt Case filed Under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act 1971 to punish the respondents herein for wilfully and disobedience and Utter violation of the Orders daled 27 -04-2022 passed in C.R.P No. 1068 of 2O21. Between:

¶11

Bairi Rakesh Kumar, S/o.Late Srihari Aged about 32 years, Occ: Advocate R/o.H.No.9-21, Kamalapur Village and Mandal, HanumakondaDistrict ,Telangana State. ...PET|T|ONER

¶12

AND

¶13

Perumalla Sammaiah, S/o.Late Mallaiah, Aged about 62 years, Occ: Business Near Bus Stand, R/o.Kamalapur Village and Mandal Hanumakonda District, Telangana State ...RESPONDENT/DEFENOANT

¶14

Counsel for the Petitioner :SRl. M.JANARDHAN RAO

¶15

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI RAVI KUMAR VADLAKONDA

¶16

The Court made the following:

¶17

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

¶18

CONTEMPT CASE No.2168 of 2022 1n C.R.P.No.1O68 of 2O2l

¶19

ORDER:

¶20

This Contempt Case 1S filed to punish the respondent under Section 10, 11 & 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act for his deliberate and willful disobedience and utter violation of the Orders passed by this Court in C.R.P.No.1068 of 2O2 1 dated 27.04.2022

¶21

Perusal of the record shows that by Order dated 27 .O4.2022 in C.R.P.No. 1068 ol 2O2 1 , this Court directed the respondent/defendant to furnish bank guarantee for a sum of Rs. 1,75,000/ - before the trial Court till the disposal of the suit, but till today, he failed to comply the said Order, as such Contempt application is hled in December, 2022 requesting the Court to punish the respondent for violation o[ Orders of this Court.

¶22

As on today, the Bank guarantee was not furnished inspite of specihc direction of I his Court and it clearly amounts to violation of the Orders under Section 12 ol the Contempt of Courts Act, which reads as follows:

¶23

¶24

"Saue as otherwise expresslg prouided in this Act orⁱⁿ anA oth.er laut a contempt of Court mag be^{punished with} simple impisonment for a term uthich^{mag ertend to six} months or utith fine uthich may ertend to^{ttuo thousand} ntpees, or uith both."

¶25

The provision reads that the contemnor may be^punishedwith Simple imprisonment which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to Rs.2,0O0/- or with both.

¶26

Now, it is for this Court to see whether he should be punished with imprisonment and Iine or with hne alone.

¶27

In fact, the respondent was directed to furnish Bank guarantee for a sum of Rs.l,75,OOO/-, but he failed to do so. Therefore, again imposing a fine for violation of the Orders of this Court is not sufficient as the violation is willful and he is negligent in obeying the Orders of this Court. Therefore, this Court finds that it is just and reasonable to impose Simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days and a hne of Rs.5,O00/-.

¶28

In the result, Contempt Case is allowed, the respondent/ contemnor is convicted and sentenced to suffer Simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-.

¶29

¶30

Miscellaneous petitioil -fending,^if any, shall^stand

¶31

closed

¶32

SdI M. MANJULA DEPUTY REGISTBAR

//TRUE COPY//

(./

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Principal Junior^{Civil Judge, Huzurabad,Karimnagar District'}

¶38

One CC to SRl.^{M. JANARDHAN RAO,Advocate[OPUC]}

¶39

One CC to SRl.^{RAVI KUMARVADLAKONDA, Advocate[OPUC]}

¶40

Two CD CoPies

HIGH COURT

PSS,J

DATED:211O412023

ORDER

I 2$ [?B ?sll
L.

CC.No.2168 of 2022 IN CRP NO. 1068 ol 2021

¶50

CC IS ALLOWED

¶51

&{i'}
@
a3

Bairi Rakesh Kumar v. Perumalla Sammaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bairi Rakesh Kumar v. Perumalla Sammaiah

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

Kothawalli Raji Reddy Vs Mrs. Kanukala Sathemma

T. Venkata Siva Rao, Vs Padala Tagore, and Another

Swamy Vivekananda Swamy Educational Trust Vs S.G. Rayappa Raju

Dr. Dayanka Dukkipati Vs Dr. Mandava Arum Shyam

Dr. DayankaDukkipati Vs Dr. Mandava Arum Shyam

M. Sridhar Rao, Vs the State of a.P., Rep. by Its Pp Hyd., and Another