Karnataka High Court
Sri P Krishnappa vs Sri Vithal Shamji Patel on 20 December, 2021
Bench: B.Veerappa, K S Hemalekha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA
AND
THE HON'BLE Mrs. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
C.C.C. No.479/2021 (CIVIL)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI P. KRISHNAPPA,
S/O PILLAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
R/AT KAMMASANDRA VILLAGE,
ATTIBELE HOBLI,
ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU DISTRICT.
2. K.SWATHI,
D/O SRI.P.KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
R/AT KAMMASANDRA VILLAGE,
ATTIBELE HOBLI,
ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU DISTRICT.
3. K.KEERTHI RAJU
S/O SRI.P.KRISHNAPPA
AGED 29 YEARS,
R/AT KAMMASANDRA VILLAGE,
ATTIBELE HOBLI,
2
ANEKAL TALUK
BENGALURU DISTRICT.
4. P. LAKSHMANA,
S/O SRI PILLAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
R/AT KAMMASANDRA VILLAGE,
ATTIBELE HOBLI,
ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU DISTRICT.
5. L. ARCHANA,
D/O P.LAKSHMANA,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
R/AT KAMMASANDRA VILLAGE,
ATTIBELE HOBLI,
ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU DISTRICT.
6. L. VANDANA,
D/O SRI.P.LAKSHMANA
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
R/AT KAMMASANDRA VILLAGE,
ATTIBELE HOBLI,
ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU DISTRICT.
7. P.ANANDA MURTHY,
S/ SRI.PILLAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/AT KAMMASANDRA VILLAGE,
ATTIBELE HOBLI,
ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU DISTRICT.
8. RAKSHITHA,
D/O P.ANANDA MURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
REPRESENTED BY
3
NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER
R/AT KAMMASANDRA VILLAGE,
ATTIBELE HOBLI,
ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU DISTRICT.
9. SUSHMITHA,
D/O SRI.P.ANANDA MURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
SINCE MINOR
REP. BY HER MOTHER AND NATURAL
GUARDIAN SMT.N.MANJU VANI,
W/O P.ANANDA MURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/AT KAMMASANDRA VILLAGE,
ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU DISTRICT.
10 . HARSHITHA,
D/O SRI.P. ANANDA MURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS,
SINCE MINOR,
REP. BY HER MOTHER AND NATURAL
GUARDIAN SMT.N.MANJU VANI,
W/O P.ANANDA MURTHY,
R/AT KAMMASANDRA VILLAGE,
ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU DISTRICT.
...COMPLAINANTS
(BY SRI KEMPANNA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI VITHAL SHAMJI PATEL,
MANAGING DIRECTOR,
M/S. AAKRUTI NIRMITI LTD.,
REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.002,
CHANAKYA, OPP T.WARD OFFICE,
DEVIDAYAL ROAD, MUMBAI(W)-400080.
4
HAVING ITS PROJECT OFFICE AT
AAKRUTI AMITY, ANANTHANAGARA,
PHASE II, HUSKUR GATE,
HOSUR MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 100.
2. SRI.VITHAL SHAMJI PATEL
MANAGING DIRECTOR,
M/S AAKRUTI RELATORS LTD.,
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS
REGD. OFFICE AT A-2, RAJ SNEHA
OPP: RATION OFFICE, S.N.ROAD,
MULUND (W)
MUMBAI-400 080.
HAVING ITS PROJECT OFFICE AT
AAKRUTI AMITY, ANANTHANAGARA,
PHASE II, HUSKUR GATE,
HOSUR MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 100.
...ACCUSED
(BY SRI THOMAS V. PETER, ADVOCATE)
****
THIS CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS
11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, BY THE
COMPLAINANTS PRAYING TO SUMMON THE ACCUSED PERSON AND
DEALT AND PUNISH THEM WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE
CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT IN DISOBEYING THE ORDER DATED
06.07.2017 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN MFA
2168/2016(AA).
THIS CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION COMING ON FOR FRAMING
OF CHARGES THIS DAY, B.VEERAPPA J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
5
ORDER
The present Civil Contempt Petition is filed by the
complainants to take action against the accused persons under the
provisions of Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act,
1971, for willful disobedience of the judgment and decree dated
06.07.2017 passed by this Court in MFA No.2168/2016, which came
to be disposed off in terms of the compromise petition, wherein, the
respondent No.1 had agreed that he would complete the project as
undertaken in the Memorandum of Understanding and Settlement
dated 21.06.2017 and the Supplementary Agreement of Sharing
dated 21.06.2017 and would proceed and complete the construction
work within 21 months from the date of Memorandum of
Understanding i.e., on or before the end of March 2019. Since the
accused failed to act in accordance with the said undertaking, the
complainants were forced to file the present Civil Contempt Petition.
2. This Court, in the present Contempt Petition passed a detailed
Order dated 21.10.2021 observing that, 'despite the order passed
in terms of the joint compromise petition filed by both the parties
on the concession made by the accused, till today, the construction
work is not able to be completed, clearly indicates that, the accused
has no respect to the Court Order. Therefore, the submission made
by the learned counsel for the accused cannot be accepted since
the parties are bound by the compromise petition. Even though the
accused was not able to complete the construction work as
undertaken, there is no application for extension of time and as
such, it is a clear case of contempt'.
3. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned from time to time and
ultimately, the accused filed an affidavit of undertaking dated
09.12.2021 sworn and notarized at Mumbai, wherein, at paragraph
4, it is specifically stated as under:
"4. I most humbly submit that I have utmost
respect of the orders passed by this Court and would
abide by the terms directed by this Hon'ble Court. I
hereby undertake to complete the construction of the
Residential Apartments in question within a period of
eight months from 01.01.2022 in accordance with
my undertaking as provide for the Memorandum of
Undertaking which is a part of the Order dated
06.07.2017."
4. In view of the fact that the accused now has filed an affidavit
of undertaking that he will complete the construction of the
apartments within a period of eight months from 01.01.2022, one
more opportunity shall be given to the accused to complete the
construction work in terms of the Joint Development Agreement
dated 27.11.2017 and in accordance with the Memorandum of
Understanding and Settlement and the Supplementary Agreement
of Sharing dated 21.06.2017.
5. In view of the above, we pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The Contempt Proceedings are hereby dropped.
(ii) The accused shall complete the construction of the
apartments within a period of eight months from
01.01.2022 in terms of the Memorandum of
Understanding and Settlement and the
Supplementary Agreement of Sharing dated
21.06.2017 and in compliance with the Order dated
06.07.2017 passed by the learned single Judge in
MFA No.2168/2016, without giving any room for
further contempt.
(iii) It is also made clear that, if, for any reason, the
construction work is not completed within the time
stipulated in the Affidavit of Undertaking, it is
always open for the complainants to file fresh
contempt petition, in accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
kcm
