Karnataka High Court
Sri M Shashidharan vs K Bhoopala on 20 April, 2023
Bench: B.Veerappa, M G Uma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M.G. UMA
C.C.C. NO.488/2020 (CIVIL)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. M. SHASHIDHARAN
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
S/O LATE MAHENDRAN
R/AT NO.26, 10TH CROSS
PATEL LAYOUT
BALAGERE ROAD, VARTHUR
BANGALORE - 560 087.
2. SRI. V. MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
S/O VENKATAPPA
R/AT G-547, 6TH CROSS
1ST MAIN, H.A.L.C.T.S
MARATHALLI, BANGALORE - 560 037.
...COMPLAINANTS
(BY SMT: B V VIDYULATHA, ADVOCATE AND
SRI: G V SHASHIKUMAR, AGA, APPOINTED AS COURT
COMMISSIONER VIDE ORDER DATED 26.11.2021)
AND:
1. K BHOOPALA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
S/O KRISHNAPPA
PRESIDENT, AIRCRAFT EMPLOYEES
HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD
NO.15, 1ST CROSS, C.K.C. GARDEN
OPPOSITE TO BANGALORE INSTITUTE
OF ONCOLOGY HOSPITAL, K.H. ROAD
2
(DOUBLE ROAD)
BANGALORE - 560 027.
2. SHIVAMURTHY S.N.
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
S/O NAGAPPA
3. SADASHIVAPPA S
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
S/O SANNAMARABOVI
4. SRINIVAS .D
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
S/O DHINA DAYAL
5. SOMANNA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
S/O DYAVA GOWDA
6. SARALA .K.C.
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
W/O CHANDRASHEKAR
7. SHANKAR .C.H.
AGED AABOUT 42 YEARS
S/O HUCHANNA
ACCUSED NOS. 2- 7 ARE ALL
DIRECTORS, AIRCRAFT EMPLOYEES
HOUSE BUILDING
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD
NO.15, 1ST CROSS, C.K.C. GARDEN
OPPOSITE TO BANGALORE INSTITUTE
OF ONCOLOGY HOSPITAL
K.H. ROAD (DOUBLE ROAD)
BANGALORE - 560 027.
...ACCUSED
(BY SRI: R.A. DEVANAND, ADVOCATE FOR A2, A4 AND A5.
SRI: VINOD KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR A1, A3, A6 AND A7.)
3
THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE
CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 PRAYING TO INITIATE
CONTEMPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED
HEREIN AND TO TAKE SUITABLE ACTION FOR THEIR WILLFUL
VIOLATION OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 07.08.2017 IN
W.P.NO.9869-9876/2016 (CS-RES) AT ANNEXURE-A AND TO
GRANT ALL OTHER CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS.
THIS CCC HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 14.02.2023 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
ORDERS THIS DAY, M.G. UMA J., PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The complainants have presented the complaint against
accused Nos.1 to 7 under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt
of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for
short), praying to initiate proceedings for contempt of Court
against the accused and to take suitable action for their willful
disobedience of the interim order dated 07.08.2017 passed in
Writ Petition Nos.9869-9876 of 2016 (CS-RES) and for such
other reliefs, in the interest of justice.
I - FACTS OF THE CASE
2. Brief facts of the case are that, the complainants
are the members of the Aircraft Employees' House Building
Co-operative Society Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Society' for short), which is registered under the provisions of
the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 and Rules
1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the KCS Act' and 'the KCS
Rules' for short) having its own bye-laws approved by the
Competent Authority. The affairs of the Society are being
managed by the elected Managing Committee comprising of
13 Directors. Accused No.1 is the President and accused
Nos.2 to 7 are its Directors. The Society was formed with the
primary object of acquiring lands, forming layouts and
allotting house sites to its members in accordance with the
norms laid down by the Government of Karnataka.
Accordingly, the Society formed various layouts in and around
Bengaluru city. There was litigation between the members of
the Society and Writ Petition No.19213 of 2007 (CS) was filed
before this Court. This Court had passed an order dated
24.11.2008 directing the Joint Registrar of Co-operative
Societies to hold a detailed enquiry into the affairs of the
Society, particularly, in the matter of allotment of sites in
favour of its members, the manner in which the amounts
were collected and the manner in which the sites have been
allotted in favour of the members. It was also held that if any
manipulation of the records of the Society in respect of such
allotment of sites were found, the Joint Registrar was directed
to ensure proper remedy and measures to be taken under the
provisions of the KCS Act, by issuing notice to such persons
and by identifying the persons who are responsible and guilty
of such action. It is stated that the said order dated
24.11.2008 was confirmed in Writ Appeal No.1899 of 2008
(CS) vide order dated 19.12.2008. Since the enquiry was not
completed as directed, few of the members of the Society
have filed contempt petitions in CCC No.769 of 2009 (Civil)
and CCC Nos.886-890 of 2009 (Civil). Those contempt
petitions came to be disposed vide order dated 21.02.2012. In
the meantime, the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies
appointed Sri Nazeer Ahmed, Assistant Registrar of the Co-
operative Societies (Consumer) as Enquiry Officer. The
Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 16.08.2012 to the
Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies framing 11 charges
against the persons concerned.
3. It is stated that on 26.04.2013, the Joint Registrar
of the Co-operative Societies passed an order under Section
68 of the KCS Act and directed the Executive Committee and
the Secretary of the Society to implement the directions and
to file compliance report within 60 days from the date of
receipt of the order. One of the directions issued by the Joint
Registrar of Co-operative Societies is to prepare the list of
seniority of the members as per bye-laws No.11 and 58 and
to ensure formation and allotment of sites only after obtaining
approval of the list by the Competent Authority. It was
specifically directed that the Executing Committee shall not
consider any request for allotment without preparing the
seniority list of the members and without obtaining approval
of the Department.
4. The complainants contended that since 2009, they
along with other members of the Society, were giving
representations enquiring about the implementation of the
directions issued under Section 68 of the KCS Act vide order
dated 26.04.2013, but no response was given by the
respondents. It was found that the accused have deliberately
failed to comply with the directions and they have not
prepared the seniority list of members who have applied for
sites. Therefore, Writ Petition Nos.9869-9876 of 2016 (CS-
RES) came to be filed before this Court seeking direction to
the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies to take necessary
measures to implement the order dated 26.04.2013 and also
to initiate and conclude the proceedings for disqualification
under Section 29(c) of the KCS Act, along with other reliefs.
The learned Single Judge by the order dated 10.03.2016,
passed an interim order directing the learned Government
Advocate to seek instructions as to why no further steps have
been taken in spite of the order passed under Section 68 of
the KCS Act in the year 2013 itself. In the meantime, the
Society was restrained from making allotment of any sites.
5. It is contended that an application in IA.2 of 2016
was filed on behalf of the Society seeking vacating of the
interim order dated 10.03.2016 restraining respondent No.3-
Society from making allotment of sites. Considering the
grievance raised that the Society is under an obligation to
take up new projects for formation of layouts for allotment of
sites to its members as undertaken, the learned Single Judge,
taking into consideration the interest of the petitioners in the
writ petitions, as well as the Society and its members,
modified the earlier interim order dated 10.03.2016 vide its
order dated 07.08.2017, making it clear that pending disposal
of the writ petitions, respondent No.3 - Society shall not make
any allotment/execution of sale deeds without following the
seniority list of its members as approved by the Registrar of
Co-operative Societies.
6. The complainants contended that only with an
intention to willfully disobey the interim order dated
07.08.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge, the accused
without submitting or obtaining approval of the seniority list
of the members from the Registrar of Co-operative Societies,
have registered the sale deed in respect of two sites in favour
of some other persons who were not the members of the
Society on 03.03.2020 and thereby, they have willfully and
deliberately disobeyed the order of this Court and committed
contempt. Therefore, the complainants sought for initiation of
contempt proceedings against the accused and requested to
take suitable action against them.
II - OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ACCUSED
7. The respondents-accused have appeared before
the Court represented by their respective advocates and filed
objections.
8. The respondents have appeared before the Court
with the following defence:
(i) there is no disobedience of the order dated
07.08.2017;
(ii) The site Nos.355-A and 355-B are situated at
Chikkanahalli-Kammanahalli Layout and not at
Kudlusingsandra Layout, whereas, Writ Petition Nos.9869-
9876 of 2016 were filed and the order dated 07.08.2017
refers only to the sites formed in Kudlusingasandra Layout
and not to the sites at Chikkanahalli-Kammanahalli Layout;
(iii) The accused were not benefited by alienating the
sites in favour of 'M/s.Sai Reniit Projects Private Limited', as
the entire sale consideration was received by the Society;
(iv) All the members of the Managing Committee
being the Directors have taken a joint decision to alienate the
sites and accordingly, two sites were alienated by virtue of
sale deed dated 03.03.2020. But all the members of the
Managing Committee who are the Directors are made parties
to the contempt proceedings. Therefore, the petition is bad
for non-joinder of necessary parties;
(v) When all the Directors collectively taken the
decision to alienate the sites and when the other Directors
have authorised the President - accused No.1 to execute the
sale deed, the complainants could not have restricted the
complaint only to accused Nos.1 to 7;
(vi) Accused Nos.2 to 7 are only the signatories to the
sale deed as witnesses. They are not the executants of the
sale deed. The witnesses are not supposed to know the
contents of the sale deed. Under such circumstances, no
offence of contempt of Court was committed by accused
Nos.2 to 7;
(vii) If the context under which the interim orders
dated 10.03.2016 and 07.08.2017 were passed are taken into
consideration, there is no basis for initiation of the
proceedings for contempt. A portion of the order here and
there cannot be picked up to contend that there is contempt
of Court;
(viii) The proceedings initiated for contempt of Court is
barred by limitation under Section 20 of the Contempt of
Courts Act, as the order dated 07.08.2017 gave cause of
action for initiating the proceedings, but the complaint came
to be filed on 29.09.2020;
(ix) There was compelling reason for the accused to
sell the sites in question i.e., the Society was under financial
crunch and was looking for raising funds for forming the
layouts and allot the sites to its members and secondly, the
site bearing Nos.355-A and 355-B of Chikkanahalli-
Kammanahalli layout were having litigation and therefore,
none of the members of the Society came forward to purchase
the same. M/s. Sai Reniit Projects Private Limited voluntarily
came forward to purchase the sites in question and therefore,
the Society after holding discussions in the Committee
Meeting, took a collective decision to sell the sites, which
would enable the Society to raise funds and also to avoid
litigation.
(x) The Society has not acted hurriedly in alienating
the sites in question. The Board of Directors met on various
dates before taking a decision and executing the sale deed;
(xi) The Society has taken the legal opinion before
proceeding to alienate the property. As per the legal opinion,
alienation of the sites situated at Chikkanahalli-Kammanahalli
layout would not amount to disobedience of the interim order
dated 07.08.2017;
(xii) The act of the accused is thus a bonafide one
without there being any ill-will or motive. The act of the
accused is done in public interest as the intention was to
mobilize funds for the Society. There is no willful
disobedience of the order passed by the Court to justify
initiation of contempt proceedings;
(xiii) Accused Nos.1, 3, 6 and 7 are ready and willing to
tender unconditional apology, if the Court comes to the
conclusion that they have committed willful disobedience of
the order of the Court and are liable for contempt of Court.
Therefore, they are to be pardoned and proceedings against
them is to be dropped;
(xiv) The complainants have initiated the proceedings
with ill-will and motive. PW1 admitted in his evidence that he
was the member of the Society for the past 36 years and he
was served with the show cause notice with regard to his
removal from membership, which has resulted in initiation of
contempt proceedings; and
(xv) PW1 had approached the accused demanding
Rs.60 lakhs before framing of charge. When his demand was
not met, he has proceeded to prosecute the accused with
false and baseless allegations. Therefore, there is no
bonafides in the complaint to initiate the proceedings for
contempt.
9. After hearing both the parties, vide order dated
26.11.2021, the following charge was framed against accused
Nos.1 to 7:
"CHARGE AGAINST ACCUSED NO.1
In violation of the interim order dated
07/08/2017, passed in W.P.Nos.9869-9876/2016,
you the accused executed the registered sale deed
on 03/03/2020 (Annexure-H), in favour of M/s.
Sai Reniit Projects Private Limited and that
accused Nos.2 to 7 have signed as witnesses,
aided and abetted you in committing breach of the
said interim order. Therefore, you have committed
an offence punishable under Sections 11 and 12 of
the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, within the
cognizance of this Court."
"In violation of the interim order dated
07/08/2017, passed in WP Nos.9869-9876/16,
you executed the sale deed on 03/03/2020
(Annexure-H), as witness in favour of M/s. Sai
Reniit Projects Private Limited and that accused
Nos.2 to 7 aided and abetted you in committing
committing breach of the said interim order."
10. After framing of the charge against the accused,
learned counsel for the parties were again heard and vide
order dated 26.11.2021 passed the following;
"26. Keeping in mind the aforesaid
principles, this Court granted interim order and
subsequently modified at the instance of the
accused persons and thereby the accused persons
violated the order of this Court deliberately with
an intention to defraud the complainants.
Therefore, it clearly depicts that the accused
persons willfully disobeyed the order, thereby they
are liable to be tried by framing charge.
Accordingly, it is a fit case to frame the charge as
already observed by this Court on 08/02/2021.
Hence, the charge is framed against the accused
by a separate order today.
27. In view of the Rule 11 of the High Court
Contempt Proceedings Rules, 1981, we deem
proper to appoint Sri Shashi Kumar, learned
Government Advocate to conduct the proceedings
against the accused persons."
11. The accused have pleaded not guilty for the
charges leveled against them and claim to be tried.
12. The first complainant examined himself as PW1
and got marked Exs.P1 to P10 in support of his contention.
He was subjected to cross-examination by the learned counsel
for the accused. On behalf of the accused, DWs.1 to 3 were
examined and Exs.D1 to D8 were got marked in support of
their defence.
13. Results of the election declared by the Returning
Officer- Sri Siddagangappa on 05.04.2015, declaring the
names of 13 members elected as the Directors of the
Managing Committee for the Society is marked as Ex.C1.
14. Heard Sri G V Shashikumar, learned Additional
Government Advocate who was appointed as Court
Commissioner for the complainants; Sri Vinod Kumar, learned
counsel for accused Nos.1, 3, 6 and 7; and Sri R A Devanand,
learned counsel for accused Nos.2, 4 and 5.
15. Learned Additional Government Advocate
representing the complainants submitted that passing of the
interim order dated 10.03.2016 and the modified order dated
07.08.2017 by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition
Nos.9869-9876 of 2016 is an admitted fact. It is also
admitted that accused No.1 is the President and other
accused are the Directors constituting the Managing
Committee of the Society. It is also admitted that accused
No.1 has executed the sale deed dated 03.03.2020 produced
as per Ex.P6 and accused Nos.2 to 7 have attested the sale
deed, alienating two sites in favour of a third party which is in
clear violation of the interim order dated 07.08.2017.
Admittedly, the seniority list of the members was never
prepared nor the same was approved by the Registrar of the
Co-operative Societies.
16. Learned Additional Government Advocate further
submitted that the accused were very well aware of passing of
the interim order dated 10.03.2016 and order dated
07.08.2017. The meeting of the Board of Directors was held
on 28.11.2019 and there was a discussion with regard to the
interim order passed by the Court, restraining respondent
No.3 - Society from allotting sites/executing the sale deed
without following the seniority list of its members as approved
by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. Inspite of that, the
accused have proceeded to execute the sale deed, which
discloses that they have deliberately disobeyed the order of
this Court lowering the majesty of the Court. Even though an
attempt was made to contend that there is no deliberate
disobedience of the order of the Court and to contend that the
case falls under Section 13 of the Contempt of Courts Act, the
facts and circumstances of the case disclose that it does not
fall under the said provision of law. Therefore, the accused
are liable for conviction and sentence in accordance with law.
Accordingly, he prays for convicting the accused and
sentencing them appropriately.
17. Per contra, learned counsel for accused Nos.1, 3,
6 and 7 submitted that there is no willful disobedience of the
order of this Court. There was litigation about the land in
question, which is the subject matter of the sale deed dated
03.03.2020. The members of the Society have not came
forward to get the same allotted in their favour. The Society
was in financial crunch. Under these compelling
circumstances, the Society had obtained legal opinion as per
Ex.D3 after passing unanimous Resolution to that effect. The
accused have acted on the legal opinion given by the legal
expert. Therefore, there is no disobedience of the order in
question, much less, any wilfil disobedience.
18. Learned counsel further submitted that accused
Nos.2 to 7 are only the signatories to the sale deed as
witnesses. They are not the executants of the sale deed.
Therefore, it cannot be said that they, in any way have
alienated the sites in violation of the order of the Court. In
this regard, learned counsel has placed reliance on the
decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of
Kalegowda Vs. State & Another to contend that there is
difference between signing the document as attesting witness
or as confirming witness or as the executant of the sale deed.
Since accused Nos.2 to 7 are not the executants and are only
attesting witnesses, they are not liable for conviction.
19. Learned counsel for accused Nos.1, 3, 6 and 7
contended that the accused have not personally benefited by
the sale of sites. It is the Society which took the
consideration amount. Therefore, the accused are not liable
for conviction. He has placed reliance on the decisions of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ashok Paper Kamgar
Union Vs. Dharam Godha & Others2, Dinesh Kumar
Gupta Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited &
Others3, All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam Vs.
L.K.Tripathi & Others4 and Ram Kishan Vs. Tarun Bajaj &
Others5 in support of his contention that the burden of proof
lies on the person alleging contempt and to contend that the
Crl.P.No.39/2020 dt:08.03.2022
(2003) 11 SCC 1
(2010) 12 SCC 770
(2009) 5 SCC 417
(2014) 16 SCC 204
standard of proof required is that of criminal proceedings i.e.,
proof beyond the reasonable doubt.
20. Learned counsel further submitted that the entire
text of the order passed by the learned Single Judge and the
context under which, such an order was passed is to be taken
into consideration. A portion of the order here and there
cannot be picked up to make out a ground to initiate
proceedings for contempt. The Court passed the interim
order restraining the Society from allotting the sites without
following the seniority. But, in the present case, the Society
alienated the sites to a third party. No sites were allotted in
favour of any of the members of the Society in violation of the
order. Under such circumstances, there is no disobedience,
much less, willful disobedience of the order.
21. Learned counsel further submitted that the writ
petitions that were filed was in respect of the sites that were
formed in Kudlusingasandra Layout, but not in respect of
Chikkanahalli-Kammanahalli sites. The sale deed came to be
executed in respect of the sites in Chikkanahalli-
Kammanahalli Layout, but not in respect of Kudlusingasandra
Layout. Under such circumstances, the alienation of sites by
the Society cannot be brought under the purview of the
interim order 07.08.2017. When the subject matter of the
sale deed was not at all the subject matter of the writ
petitions, it cannot be said that the accused have committed
any contempt. The Court cannot extend or enlarge the scope
of the order or the of relief sought in the matter. Learned
counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Kangaro Industries (REGD) &
Ors. Vs. Jaininder Jain & Anr.6 in support of his contention
that since few of the accused have tendered unconditional
apology, same may be accepted and charge against them
may be dropped. However, learned counsel submitted that in
spite of the above, if the Court comes to the conclusion that
the accused have committed contempt of Court and that there
is willful disobedience of the interim order dated 10.03.2016
and 07.08.2017, accused Nos.1, 3, 6 and 7 would tender
unconditional apology and they seek pardon from this Court.
Hence, he prays for dropping the contempt proceedings
against the said accused.
Civil Apl No.5007/2008 dated 06.04.2022
submitted that these accused are only witnesses to the sale
deed. They are not the executants of the document. He also
submitted that the interim order dated 07.08.2017 was not in
respect of Chikkanahalli-Kamanahlli Layout and it was never
the subject matter before the writ Court. Moreover, the
interim order refers to the allotment of sites in favour of its
members, but it does not bar the Society from alienating the
property in favour of the third parties.
23. Learned counsel submitted that the contempt
petition moved by the complainants is barred by limitation.
The cause of action had arisen on 07.08.2017, but the
complaint came to be filed on 29.09.2020. Learned counsel
also submitted that the purchasers of the property are not
arrayed as accused. The contempt petition is only restricted
to the vendor and the witnesses to the sale deed. Therefore,
the contempt petition is not maintainable. He placed reliance
on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Pallav Sheth Vs. Custodian & Others7 in support of his
contention that Section 20 of the Limitation Act deal not only
(2001) 7 SCC 549
with criminal contempt, but also with civil contempt. The
period of limitation prescribed is only one year. But the
present proceedings instituted beyond the period of one year
is liable to be dropped.
24. Learned counsel further submitted that the
materials on record disclose that the Board of Directors
discussed about the lands comprised in Chikkanahalli-
Kammanahalli Layout in the meeting dated 28.11.2019. The
compelling reasons for the Society to sell the said land was
also discussed. There was litigation in respect of the said land
and no member was ready or interested to buy the same.
The adjoining owners offered to purchase the property for
better price. The Society thought it fit to alienate the
property to mobilize funds to form the layouts for allotting
sites to its members and also to get rid of the litigation. After
discussions on the subject, it was decided that legal opinion is
to be sought as to whether the land could be sold in favour of
the third party. After obtaining the legal opinion, the accused
have acted on the same.
25. Learned counsel further submitted that PW1 had
also taken part in the meeting that was held on 30.12.2019.
He had not raised any objection in the meeting, but on the
other hand, he has participated in the discussion and was very
well aware of the litigation that was pending in respect of the
layout formed in Chikkanahalli-Kammanahalli. The letter that
was written by the prospective buyer expressing his
willingness to purchase the property was placed before the
members and that there was a discussion in the meeting,
where PW1 was very much present but had not raised any
objection. However, no final decision was taken on that day.
On 28.01.2020, the prospective buyer had given the draft sale
deed. After discussions, the said draft was unanimously
accepted in the meeting that was held on 29.02.2020. The
President was authorized by other members to execute and to
register the sale deed. The conduct of the accused disclose
that the decision to alienate the property and to execute the
sale deed was not taken hurriedly, but the subject was
discussed in the meetings and necessary Resolutions were
passed, legal opinion was sought and only thereafter, the
President was authorised to execute the sale deed and
accordingly, the sale deed was executed by accused No.1 and
other accused have signed it only as witnesses. Under such
circumstances, initiation of contempt proceedings only against
these accused is bad under law.
26. Learned counsel also referred to the documents
Exs.D2, 4, 5 and 6 which are the Resolutions passed in the
meetings, Ex.D7 to demonstrate pendency of the litigation
i.e., OS No.74 of 2014 and Ex.D3-the legal opinion dated
28.02.2020 obtained by the Advocate, to substantiate his
contentions. Therefore, learned counsel contended that all
these documents show the bondafides of the accused in
proceeding with execution of the sale deed. Thus, he would
contend that the act of the accused is bonafide one, done in
public interest as the intention was to mobilize funds for the
Society. Under such circumstances, the accused have not
committed any contempt.
27. Learned counsel further submitted that since PW1
was also part of the Committee and participated in the
meeting, was fully aware of the discussions held and the
Resolutions that were being passed, but in spite of that, not
raised his objections, shows his intention in prosecuting the
accused. The cross-examination of PW1 discloses that he was
the member of the Society for the past 36 years. He had also
applied for allotment of sites. There was difference of opinion
between the complainants and the Society. He had even
lodged the complaint to the Joint Registrar of Co-operative of
Societies. Show Cause Notice was issued against him to
remove him from the membership. All these facts and
circumstances disclose the character of PW1 and the intention
with which he moved the contempt petition.
28. Learned counsel further submitted that CCC
Nos.769 of 2009 (civil) and CCC Nos.886-890 of 2009 (civil)
were also moved by the complainants, even though there was
no interim order and there was no contempt committed by the
accused. All those contempt proceedings were dropped. The
complainants are in the habit of making allegations against
the accused for one or the other reasons. This shows the
intention of the complainants to somehow see that the
accused are punished. Learned counsel submitted that it is
pertinent to note that even PW1 was allotted with a site in
Kudlusingasandra Layout. He sold it in favour of another
person. The writ petitions concerned refer to the sites formed
in Kudlusingasandra Layout. The interim order obviously
refers to the Kudlusingasandra Layout, but not in respect of
the subject matter of the sale deed i.e., Site Nos.355-A and
355-B, which are situated at Chikkanahalli-Kammanahalli
Layout.
29. Learned counsel submitted that during cross-
examination of PW1, he pleaded his ignorance as to what was
the compelling reason for the Society to sell the sites in
question. Under such circumstances, he could not have
complained that the accused have committed willful
disobedience of the order passed by this Court.
30. Learned counsel also submitted that DWs.2 and 3
are only signatories to the sale deed as attesting witnesses.
The attesting witnesses are not suppose to know the contents
of the sale deed. Therefore, the complainants cannot contend
that accused have committed any contempt by willful
disobedience of the order.
31. Learned counsel further submitted that the
purchasers and all the members of the Managing Committee
who are the Directors are not made as parties to the
contempt petition. Therefore, the petition is bad for non-
joinder of necessary parties. All those members have joined
in taking a decision to alienate the sites under the sale deed
dated 03.03.2020. The complainants have adopted the
practice of pick and choose only these accused to try for
contempt of Court.
32. Learned Counsel also contended that the burden of
proof regarding commission of contempt by willful
disobedience heavily rests on the complainants. He has
placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of Niaz Mohammad & Others Vs. State of
Haryana & Others8 and Uniworth Textiles Limited Vs.
Commissioner of Central Excise Raipur9 in support of his
contention that the burden of proof lies on the person alleging
contempt and to contend that the standard of proof required
is that of the criminal proceedings, i.e. proof beyond
reasonable doubt.
AIR 1995 SC 308
(2013) 9 SCC 753
33. In view of the above, learned counsel submitted
that no disobedience much less willful disobedience of either
the order dated 10.03.2016 or 07.08.2017 is made out
against the accused and therefore, the charge framed against
them is not proved by the complainants. Hence, the
contempt proceeding is to be dropped and the accused are to
be acquitted.
IV - POINT FOR CONSIDERATION
34. Considering the materials on record, the point
that would arise for our consideration is:
"1. Whether accused No.1 has committed
contempt of Court by willfully disobeying the
interim order dated 07.08.2017 passed in Writ
Petition Nos.9869-9876 of 2016 (CS-RES) by
executing the registered sale deed dated
03.03.2020 (Annexure-H) in favour of M/s. Sai
Reniit Projects Private Limited and thereby,
committed the offence punishable under Sections
11 and 12 of the contempt of Courts Act?
2. Whether accused Nos.2 to 7 have
committed contempt of Court by wilfully
disobeying the interim order dated 07.08.2017
passed in Writ Petition Nos.9869-9876 of 2016
(CS-RES) by signing the registered sale deed
dated 03.03.2020 (Annexure-H) executed by
accused No.1 in favour of M/s. Sai Reniit Projects
Private Limited, as witnesses and thereby, aided
and abetted commission of breach of the said
interim order and thereby, committed the offence
punishable under Sections 11 and 12 of the
contempt of Courts Act, within the cognizance of
this Court?"
35. We have given our anxious consideration to the
arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties
and perused the entire material including original records
carefully.
V - CONSIDERATION
36. It is the contention of the complainants that the
accused have committed willful disobedience of the interim
order dated 07.08.2017 in Writ Petition Nos.9869-9867 of
2016 passed by the learned Single Judge that in violation of
the said interim order, the accused have executed a
registered sale deed dated 03.03.2020 in favour of "M/s. Sai
Reniit Projects Private Limited", and thereby willfully
disobeyed the order which amounts to contempt of Court as
defined under Section 2(b) punishable under Section 12 of the
Contempt of Courts Act. The first complainant is examined as
PW1. He has reiterated his contention as taken in the
complaint that accused No.1 being the President and accused
Nos.2 to 7 being the Directors, constitute the Managing
Committee of the Society in question. He refers to the orders
dated 10.03.2016 and 07.08.2017 passed in Writ Petition
Nos.9869-9876 of 2016, the sale deed dated 03.03.2020
executed by the accused in favour of 'M/s.Sai Reniit Projects
Private Limited' represented by one Narayanappa and
Mahesha for various considerations. Witness produced and
marked Exs.P1 to 10 in support of his contention that the
accused willfully disobeyed the order dated 07.08.2017
passed in the writ petitions and thereby, they have committed
contempt of Court.
37. The Witness was cross-examined by learned
counsel for the accused. During cross-examination, witness
admitted that the Society was formed only to ensure
allotment of sites to its members. He denied the suggestion
that the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies passed the
order dated 26.04.2013 under Section 68 of the KCS ACT in
respect of only Kudlusingasandra Layout, but not in respect of
the other layouts formed by the Society. Witness admitted
that the accused were initially not parties in Writ Petition
Nos.9869-9876 of 2016, as there was a Managing Committee
consisting of other members.
38. The witness denied the suggestion that site
Nos.355-A and 355-B in Sy.No.24/1 of Chikkanahalli-
Kammanahalli village are independent sites, but not part of
the layout. Witness asserted that those sites were also part
of the layout formed by the Society. Witness pleaded
ignorance about the Managing Committee meetings held on
28.11.2019, 30.12.2019 28.01.2020 and on 29.02.2020.
Witness also pleaded his ignorance as to whether the Society
obtained legal opinion before alienation of the sites.
However, witness stated that pursuant to the sale deed dated
03.03.2020, the accused might have obtained favour, but
pleaded ignorance about the nature of such favour. Witness
denied the suggestion that, out of vengeances and
intentionally, he filed the contempt petition. Witness also
denied the suggestion that he had approached the accused
and demanded an amount of Rs.60 lakhs before framing of
charges.
39. Witness admitted that he had some difference of
opinion with the Society and even he lodged the complaint
against it before the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Society
during 2017-18. Witness admitted that he was served with a
Show Cause Notice dated 18.04.2017 as to why he should not
be removed from the membership of the Society. Witness
stated that one or two months prior to filing of the contempt
petition, he came to know regarding alienation of site
Nos.355-A and 355-B by the Management in favour of a third
party. He pleaded his ignorance as to why those sites were
sold in favour of a third party and that none of the members
were interested in getting allotment of the sites and therefore,
the Management was forced to sell it to the third party.
Witness admitted that the Society might have filed the suit for
cancellation of the said sale deed.
40. Ex.P1 is the certified copy of the petition in Writ
Petition Nos.9869-9876/2016, Ex.P2 is the copy of the
objections filed by respondent No.3 in the writ petitions, Ex.P3
is the copy of the application filed by respondent No.3 in the
writ petitions seeking vacating of the order of stay dated
10.03.2016, Ex.P4 is the copy of the objection to the said
application, Ex.P5 is the copy of the order sheet in the writ
petitions, Exs.P6 to P8 are the certified copies of the sale
deeds dated 03.03.2020 and 07.03.2020, Ex.P9 is the copy of
the order dated 10.03.2016 and Ex.P10 is the copy of the
vakalath filed on behalf of respondent No.3.
41. Accused No.1 examined himself as DW1 and
referred to the order dated 07.08.2017 passed in Writ Petition
Nos.9869-9876 of 2016 which states that the Court had
passed the order against respondent No.3 - Society not to
alienate or execute any sale deed in respect of any sites
without following the seniority list of its members as approved
by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. The interim order
dated 10.03.2016 was modified by passing the order dated
07.08.2017.
42. Witness stated that accused Nos.1 to 7 were
elected as Directors of the Society for the period from 2015 to
2020. Witness stated that after he becoming the Director, the
Society formed layout at Devanahalli and Chikkanahalli-
Kammanahalli village. There was some problem in respect of
the sites formed in Kudlusingasandra and Chikkanahalli-
Kammanahalli layouts. In respect of Chikkanahalli-
Kammanahalli layouts, OS No.74 of 2014 was filed by one
Ms.Munirathna. The Society was arrayed as defendant No.12
and it has filed its written statement. Site Nos.355-A and 355-
B were not part of Kudlusingasandra Layout, but it is in
Chikkanahalli-Kammanahalli Layout. Witness stated that
since there was litigation in respect of these two sites, none of
the members came forward to get the sites allotted.
Therefore, the Committee by its Resolution dated 28.11.2019,
took a decision to take legal opinion and to alienate both the
sites. Resolutions were also passed on 30.12.2019,
28.01.2020 and on 29.02.2020 regarding taking of the legal
opinion and for selling the sites in question. Witness stated
that both the sites were sold in favour of M/s. Sai Reniit
Projects Private Limited for total consideration of Rs.1.38
crores and the same was paid to the Society, but he was not
personally benefited by selling the same. Witness stated that
he has not violated any of the order of the Court. There was
no any intention on his part to commit disobedience of the
order.
43. During cross-examination, witness admitted that
he himself had filed reply statement on behalf of all the
accused in the contempt proceedings. He also admitted that
Sy.No.24/1 was purchased by the Society on 06.06.2009 and
subsequently, it was converted and sites were formed, where
site Nos.355-A and 355-B are situated. Witness admitted that
he was knowing about the interim order dated 10.03.2016
passed in the writ petitions and regarding filing of IA No.2 of
2016 seeking vacating of the said interim order. Witness
admitted that the said application was considered by the
Court and modified the interim order on 07.08.2017 directing
the respondent - Society not to alienate any of the sites
without prior permission from the Registrar of Co-operative
Societies. Witness volunteers that the said interim order was
passed in respect of Kudlusingasandra Layout.
44. Witness admitted that the dimension of the sites
in the layout were either 30' x 40', 40' x 60' or maximum
50' x 80' and also admitted that site No.355-A was measuring
11140.63 sq.ft. and site No.355-B was measuring 12521.65
sq.ft. Witness stated that he has not produced any document
before the Court to show that before alienating the sites, the
members were notified that the said sites were available for
allotment.
45. Witness stated that OS No.74 of 2014 was filed by
the owner of the land against their family members, wherein,
the Society was arrayed as defendant No.12. The Society
filed the written statement wherein, at para No.23, it is stated
that the sites are already allotted to the members of the
Society and the said allotees are in possession of the same.
However, witness stated that at that time, he was only a
member and was under the impression that the interim order
dated 07.08.2017 was only in respect of Kudlusingasandra
Layout and not in respect of Aircraft Employees' House
Building Co-operative Society Limited. Witness stated that he
was not aware as to whether any clarification from the Court
was sought in respect of the same. Witness admitted that he
himself was conducting the proceedings in the writ petition on
behalf of the Society, but denied the suggestion that
deliberately and willfully, he along with other accused,
alienated the sites in question, in violation of the interim order
dated 07.08.2017. Witness stated that since the litigation
was pending in respect of the said sites, none of the members
came forward to purchase the same. As such, the same was
sold for lesser price, than the market value, after obtaining
opinion from the Advocate.
46. Accused No.7 examined himself as DW2 and
stated that he knows the facts of the case. Witness stated
that he was not in the Management of the Society during
2013. He became the member of the Managing Committee in
2015-2020. OS No.74 of 2014 was filed by the landlord for
recovery of money against the defendants. Site Nos.355-A
and 355-B were larger sites. Even though the Society offered
the said sites to the members, none of them came forward to
purchase the same, in view of the pendency of the suit.
Therefore, the members in the Committee including himself
took a decision to alienate the sites. However, before
alienating the sites, the Committee took legal advise from its
Advocate. Witness identified his signature found in Ex.P6 and
stated that he has not committed willful disobedience of the
order.
47. During cross-examination by learned counsel for
the complainants, witness admitted that all the accused
together have filed objection. Witness admitted about
passing of the interim orders dated 10.03.2016 and
07.08.2017 in the writ petitions. After discussing with the
Advocate and taking legal opinion, the sites in question
situated at Chikkanahalli-Kammanahalli layout were sold,
since the interim order was only in respect of
Kudlusingasandra Layout. However, witness admitted that
while passing the interim order dated 07.08.2017, the Court
directed the Society not to alienate or allot any of the sites
without prior permission from the Registrar of Co-operative
Society. Witness admitted that he signed the sale deed dated
03.03.2020 as witness. He also stated that he is not having
any document to show that the sites were offered to the
members of the Society prior to selling to the third party.
Witness admits that the maximum dimensions of the sites
formed by the Society is 50' x 80', but the sites bearing
Nos.355-A and 355-B were measuring about 23,000 sq.ft.
Since there was litigation in respect of those sites, the same
were sold by the Society for lesser value. Witness denied the
suggestion that the accused have committed willful
disobedience of the order passed in the writ petitions.
48. Accused No.4 examined himself as DW3. He has
stated that he became the Director of the Committee in 2015-
2020. As on the date of filing of the contempt petition, he
was not the Director of the Society. Site Nos.355-A and 355-
B are part and parcel of Chikkanahalli-Kammanahalli Layout.
He signed the sale deed as witness, alienating the said sites in
favour of M/s. Sai Reniit Projects Private Limited. Witness
stated that even though the sites are of bigger dimension, the
same was sold for lesser price, since it was under litigation.
49. During cross-examination, witness stated that he
was the member of the Board and knew all the developments
including the meetings held by the Society. Witness admitted
that he was the Director of the Society from 05.04.2015 to
04.04.2020. He also identified Ex.C1 and stated that at
Sl.No.5 in Ex.C1, his name is mentioned. Witness pleaded his
ignorance as to whether any permission was taken by the
Registrar of Co-operative Society before alienating the sites in
question in favour of the third party. Witness stated that
there was no difficulty for him to file an application before the
Court where the writ petition was pending, to seek
clarification regarding the interim order. Witness pleaded his
ignorance as to why the opinion from the Advocate, who was
handling the writ petitions, was not taken. However, he stated
that his Secretary told him that the interim order was in
respect of Kudlusingasandra Layout.
50. Ex.D1 is the order dated 26.04.2013 passed by
the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies in respect of
Aircraft Employees' House Building Co-operative Society
Limited; Ex.D2 is the copy of the Resolution dated
28.11.2019; Ex.D3 is the legal opinion dated 28.02.2020
obtained by the Committee; Exs.D4 to D6 are the Resolutions
passed by the Committee dated 30.12.2019, 28.01.2020 and
29.02.2020; Ex.D7 is the copy of the plaint in OS No.74 of
2014 filed by one Ms.Munirathna; and Ex.D8 is the written
statement filed in the said suit by the Society.
51. Section 2(b) of the Act defines 'Civil Contempt' as
it would mean willful disobedience as to any order passed by
the Court. Therefore, there must be an order passed by the
Court and there must be willful disobedience of the said order
to constitute civil contempt. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of L K Tripathi (supra), referred to the word 'willful'
which was not defined in Act, 1971 and by referring to the
meaning of the word in Oxford Illustrated Dictionary, the term
'willful' means 'asserting or disposed to assert one's own will
against instruction, persuasion etc., obstinately self-willed;
deliberate, intentional, showing perversity or self-will'. It also
referred to the Black's Law Dictionary, where the word 'willful'
is defined as 'voluntary and intentional, but not necessarily
malicious'. Willfulness means the 'fact or quality of acting
purposely or by design'; deliberateness; intention; willfulness
does not necessarily imply malice, but it involves more than
just knowledge. It means voluntary, intentional violation or
disregard of known legal duty'.
52. The Hon'ble Apex Court also held that 'he who
asserts must prove'. Meaning thereby, the burden of proof is
on the complainant. It also held that the proceedings under
the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Court in terms of
provisions of Contempt of Courts Act is quasi-criminal in
nature. It referred to the observation made by Lord Denning
and quoted that 'a Contempt of Court is an offence of a
criminal character'. A man may be sent to prison for it. It
must be satisfactorily proved. To use the time-honoured
phrase, it must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Therefore, the standard of proof that is required is the proof
beyond reasonable doubt.
53. In Ram Kishan Vs. Tarun Bajaj & Others
(supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court, considering the burden of
proof, reiterated that he who asserts must prove and the
standard of proof should be the proof beyond reasonable
doubt since the proceedings of Contempt of Court is under
extraordinary jurisdiction of the Court, in terms of Contempt
of Court which is quasi criminal in nature. In the said case it
is held that, contempt jurisdiction is a powerful weapon in the
hands of Courts of law. Therefore, it operates as a string of
caution and unless satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, it
would neither be fair nor reasonable to exercise the
jurisdiction under the Act. The Hon'ble Apex Court also held
that the word 'willful' introduces a mental element and hence,
requires looking into the mind of the contemnor by gauging
his actions, which is an indication of one's state of mind.
"Wilful" means - knowingly, intentional, conscious, calculated
and deliberate with full knowledge of consequences flowing
therefrom. It excludes casual, accidental, bonafide or
unintentional acts or genuine inabilities. Willful acts do not
encompass involuntary or negligent actions. The act has to
be done with bad purpose or without justifiable excuse or
stubbornly, obstinately or perversely. It does not include any
act done negligently or involuntarily. The 'deliberate conduct
of a person' means that he knows what he is doing and
intends to do the same. Therefore, there has to be a
calculated action with evil motive on his part.
54. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Niaz Mohammad
(supra), held that the party in whose favour an order has
been passed is entitled to the benefit of such order. It also
held that before a contemnor is punished for disobedience of
the order of the Court, the Court must not only be satisfied
about the disobedience of any order, but should be satisfied
that such disobedience was willful and intentional.
55. In Pallav Sheth (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court
considered Section 20 of the Act regarding limitation and held
that the same would deal not only with criminal contempt, but
also with civil contempt. The period of limitation is one year
from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been
committed. It also held that one of the principles underlying
the law of limitation is that a litigant must act diligently and
not sleep over its rights. It is held that the period of
limitation shall not begin to run until the complainant has
discovered the fraud or the mistake or could with reasonable
diligence has discovered it or in the case of a concealed
document, until the complainant first had the means of
producing the concealed document or compelling its
production. It also held that a party who had acted
fraudulently should not gain the benefit of limitation running
in his favour by virtue of such fraud.
56. Thus, from the decisions that are relied on by the
learned counsel for parties, it is clear that to constitute the
offence of civil contempt, there must be an order passed by
the Court and there must be willful breach or disobedience of
such order, which is to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
The period of limitation to initiate proceedings of contempt is
one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to
have been committed. The exceptions are highlighted in
Section 13 of the Act, where contempt is not punishable.
57. With these facts and circumstances and the
settled position of law, let us consider as to whether accused
Nos.1 to 7 have committed the offence as alleged.
58. The facts and circumstances narrated above
disclose that the complainants filing Writ Petition Nos.9869-
9876 of 2016 before this Court, passing of the interim order
dated 10.03.2016 restraining allotment of any sites by the
Society, modification of the interim order dated 10.03.2016
by order dated 07.08.2017, restraining respondent No.3 -
Society from allotting/executing sale deeds without following
the seniority list of its members as approved by the Registrars
of Co-operative society, execution of registered sale deed
dated 03.03.2020 by accused No.1 as President of the
Society, signed by accused Nos.2 to 7 as witnesses selling site
Nos.355-A and 355-B in favour of M/s.Sai Reniit Projects
Private Limited, are all admitted facts.
59. The copy of the Writ Petition Nos.9869-9876 of
2016 is produced before this Court as per Ex.P1. The
complainants M Shashidharan and V Muniyappa along with
other petitioners filed these writ petitions under Articles 226
and 227 of the Constitution of India, against the Joint Director
of Co-operative Societies and Additional Registrar of Co-
operative Societies (H & M), seeking a writ of certiorari or a
direction directing the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies
to take all possible measures available under law to
implement the order dated 26.04.2013 passed by him under
Section 68 of the KCS Act and to initiate and conclude the
proceedings of disqualification as envisaged under Section
29-C of KCS Act, to take suitable action against respondent
No.3 - Society under the provisions of KCS Act and to direct
respondent No.1 to initiate all possible legal proceedings
against the past and present Directors of the Society for
recovery of the loss sustained by the Society.
60. The petitioners in the writ petitions have alleged
that an order was passed on 24.11.2008 in Writ Petition
No.19213 of 2007 (CS) directing the Registrar of Co-operative
Societies to hold a detailed enquiry into the affairs of
respondent No.3 - Society and to ensure proper remedial
measures under the provisions of the Act. It is stated that
the respondents who suffered the order, have challenged the
order dated 24.11.2008 by filing Writ Appeal No.1899 of
2008, which came to be dismissed by confirming the order
dated 24.11.2008. It is the contention of the petitioners that
after dismissal of the writ appeal, various representations
were given by the members of the Society seeking enquiry as
per the directions passed in the writ petition. The Assistant
Registrar of Co-operative Societies (Consumer) was appointed
as Enquiry Officer on 30.04.2010 and he submitted his report
on 16.08.2012 holding that 11 charges framed against the
Directors and Secretary of the Society are proved. An order
under Section 68 of the KCS Act was passed issuing directions
in respect of the charges framed by the Enquiry Officer and
directing the Executive Committee of the Society to
implement all those directions and to file the compliance
report within 60 days from 26.04.2013. It is stated that there
was no compliance of such directions issued by the Joint
Director of Society, which led to filing of these petitions
seeking specific directions against respondent No.1.
61. It is pertinent to note that the petitioners in the
writ petitions have sought for an interim relief to direct
respondent No.3 - Society not to allot or transfer or submit for
registration of any site or part thereof in any layout formed by
it to any person, including its members, until the seniority list
of members seeking for allotment of sites from respondent
No.3 - Society is prepared, following the reservation
applicable to the members and obtaining approval from
respondent No.1 i.e., Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies.
62. It is also pertinent to note that the petitioners
have referred to the irregularities committed by the Board of
Directors of the Society in the layouts formed by it in general
and the relief sought was not restricted to any particular
layout either formed in Kudlusingasandra Layout or
Chikkanahalli-Kammanahalli Layout. Therefore, the
contention of the learned counsel for the accused that the
subject mater of the writ petitions is only to the layout formed
in Kudlusingasandra Layout and the subject matter of the sale
deed i.e., site Nos.355-A or 355-B is situated at
Chikkanahalli-Kammanahalli Layout and the same are not the
subject matter of the writ petitions, cannot be accepted.
63. The next contention taken by the learned counsel
for the accused is that, the accused are not benefited by
alienating the sites in favour of M/s.Sai Reniit Projects Private
Limited, as the entire sale consideration was received by the
Society and not by them personally. The Resolution dated
30.12.2019 produced as per Ex.D4 discloses that the sites
bearing No.355-A and 355-B measures 11140.63 sq.ft. and
12521.65 sq.ft. respectively, and totally measuring 23662.28
sq ft. The market value of the sites was Rs.1,100/- per sq.ft.,
but the same was resolved to be sold for a paltry sum at
Rs.700/- per sq ft. only on the ground that there is litigation
pending with regard to the sites in question.
64. Ex.D7 is the copy of the plaint in OS No.74 of
2014 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal
filed by one Ms.Munirathna and two others against defendant
Nos.1 to 12 seeking partition and separate possession of their
share in Sy.No.24/1 situated at Chikkanahalli-Kammanahalli
village with the boundaries mentioned therein. It is stated
that Site Nos.355-A and 355-B were formed in Sy.No.24/1 of
Chikkanahalli-Kammanahalli village. The plaintiffs in the said
suit contended that their father late V Venkatesh had sold
Sy.No.24/1 measuring 1 acre in favour of defendant No.12 -
the Society on 06.06.2009 and he had no absolute right to
alienate the same. Therefore, the plaintiffs, being the
children of late V Venkatesh, claimed their share over the said
1 acre of land which was purchased by the Society.
65. Ex.D8 is the written statement filed by defendant
No.12 - the Society denying the contention taken by the
plaintiffs in the said suit. It is pertinent to note that in para
23 of the written statement, a specific stand was taken by the
Society that after purchase of the schedule property by it
under the registered sale deed dated 06.06.2009, the
property was developed to form a residential layout, huge
amount was paid to the developer and further after formation
of the layout, the sites were already allotted to its members
and sale deeds were executed. Thus, it was contended that
the allottees have been put in possession of the sites in
question. This written statement was filed on 25.03.2014.
But strangely, the sites were available with the Society even
during 2019-2020 till execution of the registered sale deed as
per Exs.P6 to 8, which are dated 03.03.2020 and 07.03.2020.
The conduct of the Society represented by its President and
Directors assumes importance in the light of the allegations
made against it. There is no explanation on the part of the
accused as to why such a stand was taken while filing the
written statement when, in fact, the sites bearing No.355-A
and 355-B were not sold till March, 2020.
66. Even though, it is contended that since the sites
were under litigation and therefore, the Society thought it fit
to wash off its hands by selling the same for considerably a
lesser price, the suit OS No.74 of 2014 filed by the children of
late V Venkatesh disclose that they were challenging the
registered sale deed executed by the said V Venkatesh on the
ground that he was not having absolute authority to alienate
the same in favour of the Society. One more contention
taken by the Society that, no member came forward to
purchase those sites since it was having litigation, was never
substantiated by producing any material before the Court.
Even though, it is contended that the members were called
upon to purchase site Nos.355-A and 355-B, no scrap of
paper is made available in support of said contention. Under
such circumstances, it has to be reasonably presumed that
the members were not notified regarding availability of site
Nos.355-A and 355-B of Chikkanahalli-Kammanahalli Layout
for allotment/sale.
67. Now the question arises as to what was the
necessity for the Society to take a decision to alienate these
two sites in favour of a third party, who admittedly, was not a
member of the Society. The explanation given by the Society
that since the Society was in financial crunch, it decided to
alienate the sites in favour of third party is also not
probabilised.
68. Ex.D2 is the earliest proceedings dated
28.11.2019 passed in the Executive Committee meeting held
under the Chairmanship of K Bhoopala i.e., accused No.1
which was attended by accused No.2 - S N Shivamurthy,
accused No.3 - S Sadashivappa, accused No.4 - D Srinivas,
accused No.5 - Somanna, accused No.6 - K C Sarala and
accused No.7 - C H Shankar. There is a reference to the
litigation with respect to site Nos.355-A and 355-B and the
offer made by M/s.Sai Reniit Projects Private Limited,
represented by its owner Muni Krishnappa to purchase those
sites. The Committee decided to allot these sites in favour of
M/s.Sai Reniit Projects Private Limited and authorized the
President i.e., accused No.1 to get legal opinion and to
proceed with the matter.
69. Ex.D4 is the Resolution dated 30.12.2019,
whereunder, the Committee again discussed about the
proposal by M/s.Sai Reniit Projects Private Limited. It has
also resolved to sell the sites in question in favour of M/s.Sai
Reniit Projects Private Limited at the cost of Rs.700/- per
sq.ft., even though the market value of the site was
Rs.1100/- per sq.ft.
70. It is pertinent to note that total extent of the sites
in question was 23662.28 sq.ft. During cross examination of
DW1, the witness categorically admitted that the dimension of
the sites in the layout formed by the Society would be
generally 30' x 40' or 60' x 40' and in some area it would be
50' x 80' and not more than that. But however, these sites
are considerably the bigger sites having the dimension of
11140.63 sq.ft. and 12521.65 sq.ft. respectively. Even
though the suit filed by legal representatives of the vendors
was pending, the same cannot be a compelling reason for the
Society to alienate the sites, which is considerably a larger
extent, for a paltry sum of Rs.700/- per sq.ft. It assumes
importance when the Society has failed to place any material
to substantiate its contention that none of the members came
forward to purchase the sites in spite of notifying them and
that the Society was under financial crunch.
71. It is also pertinent to note that PW1 in his
evidence categorically stated that the accused were benefited
by selling the sites in question for a meager sum. Of course,
he was not in a position to explain as to what was the nature
of favour or the benefit derived by alienating the sites. When
on the contrary, the Society has suffered a loss by selling the
sites for a meager sum, the accused are required to justify
their acts. The burden is on the accused to substantiate their
contention that the Society was under financial crunch and
further the Society was willing to get rid of the litigation
pending in respect of those sites. The Society could have
notified its members about its intention to allot or alienate the
sites. Even thereafter, if there was no response by any of the
members, the Society would be justified in considering to
alienate the same in favour of third party. Unfortunately, no
such steps were taken.
72. Admittedly, M/s.Sai Reniit Projects Private Limited
was not the member of the Society. The Society was formed
to purchase the lands, to form the layouts by developing the
same for the purpose of allotting it to its members. The
Managing Committee of the Society in its meeting dated
30.12.2019 as per Ex.D4 resolved to give membership of the
Society to K Muni Krishnappa who was representing M/s.Sai
Reniit Projects Private Limited to enable him to purchase the
sites in question. Therefore, it is clear that the accused were
very much aware about the aims and objectives of the Society
in acquiring the land for the purpose of forming the layout and
to allot the sites to its members alone.
73. In the meeting dated 28.11.2019 as per Ex.D2,
where the Committee discussed about the proposal given by
M/s.Sai Reniit Projects Private Limited to the Society to
purchase site Nos.355-A and 355-B and it was resolved to
allot the sites in its favour by accepting the proposal and
authorizing accused No.1 to take necessary steps in that
regard. In the meeting that was held on 30.12.2019 as per
Ex.D4, the Committee again discussed about the subject and
the consideration amount for the sites was fixed at Rs.700/-
per sq.ft., even though the market value of the sites was
Rs.1100/- per sq.ft. and also it was resolved to give the
membership of the Society to K Munikrishnappa, since the
prospective buyer was not the member of the Society.
74. In the meeting that was held on 28.01.2020 as
per Ex.D5, the draft sale deed submitted by M/s. Sai Reniit
Projects Private Limited was considered, the same was
accepted and it was resolved to sell the sites in question by
again authorizing the President to take necessary steps for
execution of the sale deed. It is pertinent to note that only
about a month thereafter on 28.02.2020 as per Ex.D3, the
legal opinion was obtained.
75. Under Ex.D3, the advocate representing the
Society has referred to the decision taken by the Society in its
meeting dated 28.11.2019 resolving to sell the sites in
question for Rs.700/- per sq.ft. and also referred to the
interim order dated 10.03.2016, where there is a blanket
interim order not to allot any sites in any of the layouts and
again referred to the interim order dated 07.08.2017
restraining the Society from allotting the sites in favour of its
members without getting approval of the seniority list from
the Registrar of Co-operative Societies and opined that since
Writ Petition Nos.9869-9876 of 2016 were with reference to
Kudlasingasandra Layout and there is no reference to
Chikkanahalli-Kammanahalli Layout and since a decision is
already taken to sell the sites, the interim order does not
come in the way of executing the sale deed. It is also stated
that if the purchaser is admitted as a member of the Society
and thereafter if the sale deed is registered in its favour, there
will not be any legal impediment for such alienation and it will
not amount to contempt of Court.
76. This opinion given by the advocate representing the
Society could not be justified in any manner, when the writ
petitions referred to above were never restricted to
Kudlasingasandra Layout alone. But as already discussed, the
writ petitions refer to the irregularities in allotment of sites in
various layouts formed by the Society. Under such
circumstances, it cannot be concluded that the writ petitions
were restricted only to Kudlasingasandra Layout and not to
Chikkanahalli-Kammanahalli Layout. Moreover, the
Committee had already taken a decision to sell the sites in
question in favour of M/s.Sai Reniit Projects Private Limited,
the consideration amount was fixed, draft sale deed was
approved and the President of the Society was authorized to
execute the sale deed and only thereafter, the legal opinion
was taken on 28.02.2020.
77. It is also pertinent to note that on the very next
day i.e., on 29.02.2020 as per Ex.D6, the Committee again
met to resolve to execute the sale deed in respect of site
Nos.355-A and 355-B in favour of M/s.Sai Reniit Projects
Private Limited, authorizing the President, K Bhoopala i.e.,
accused No.1. Accordingly, three different sale deeds as per
Exs.P6 to 8 were executed on 03.03.2020 and 07.03.2020.
The sequence of events i.e., passing of the Resolutions in the
meetings, obtaining the legal opinion and executing the sale
deeds further strengthen the contention taken by the
complainants.
78. The accused who constitute Board of Directors
held meetings as per Exs.D2, 4 to 6 to resolve selling of the
sites in favour of M/s. Sai Reniit Projects Private Limited and
only at the eleventh hour took the legal opinion as a
precautionary measure, disclose that the accused are trying to
hoodwink the Court by placing the legal opinion as a shield.
In fact, the advocate who has given such an opinion has also
committed contempt of court by misinterpreting the order
passed by the Court. The order dated 07.08.2017 passed by
the learned Single Judge is in very simple and plain term. The
said order is not capable of more than one interpretation to
give rise to variety of consequences. Under such
circumstances, the accused may not have any justification to
violate the order and act contrary to the same.
79. The materials on record sufficiently prove that
there is disobedience of the interim order dated 07.08.2017
and the conduct of the accused, as discussed above, makes it
clear that each of the accused were having the knowledge of
the interim order dated 07.08.2017 passed by the learned
Single Judge restraining from allotting sites/executing the sale
deed without following the seniority list of its members as
approved by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies and
inspite of it, intentionally and consciously took decision to sell
the same to a non-member for a paltry sum without there
being any justification. It is a calculated and deliberate act on
the part of the accused with full knowledge of consequences
flowing therefrom. They also took precaution to get an
opinion, which is in fact illegal, to shield their misdeeds.
Therefore, it is to be concluded that it was a willful
disobedience of the interim order on the part of the accused
and it amounts to civil contempt. The sequence of events, in
light of the conduct of the accused from the materials that are
placed before the Court prove the commission of offence of
contempt of court as defined under Section 2(b) of the Act,
beyond reasonable doubt.
80. Learned counsel for the accused contended that if
the context under which the interim orders dated 10.03.2016
and 07.08.2017 were passed are taken into consideration,
there is no basis for initiation of proceedings of contempt.
Admittedly, the order dated 10.03.2016 passed in Writ
Petition Nos.9869-9876 of 2016, reads as under:
"The learned Government Advocate to take
notice for respondents 1 and 2.
Emergent notice to respondent No.3.
The learned Government Advocate is
directed to seek instructions as to why though the
order was passed under Section 68 in the year
2013, no further steps have been taken, which
appears to be the main grievance of the
petitioners.
The third respondent is restrained from
making any allotment of sites as on date."
(emphasis supplied)
81. After passing of the order dated 10.03.2016, the
Society has filed an application as per Ex.P3 i.e., IA.2 of 2016
under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India seeking
vacating of the exparte interim order dated 10.03.2016. A
specific contention was raised by the respondents that, since
respondent No.3 - Society was restrained by making any
allotment of sites as on the date, it has prevented from its
obligation to take up new projects for formation of layouts
and it also come in the way of implementing the order of the
Hon'ble Apex Court regarding allotment of sites to ex-land
lords. Therefore, it has sought for vacating the interim order.
Considering the same, the writ court passed the order dated
07.08.2017 which reads as under:
"Heard learned counsel for the parties on
the application filed seeking vacation of the
interim order dated 10.03.2016.
2. By the interim order passed on
10.03.2016, this Court while directing learned
Government Advocate to seek instructions as to
why the order passed under Section 68 of the
Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, wayback in
the year 2013 was not enforced, has restrained
respondent No.3 - Society from making any
allotment of sites.
3. In the application now filed seeking
vacation of the interim order, respondent No.3 -
Society has contended that the Society being
under an obligation to take up new project for
formation of layout for allotment of sites to its
members has undertaken the task. Though
several contentions have been urged in the
application filed stating that no illegalities have
been committed, it is not necessary at this stage
to go into this aspect of the matter.
4. During the course of arguments,
learned senior counsel appearing for the
petitioners, on instructions from respondent No.3
submits that apprehension of the petitioners that
allotment of sites would be made here afterwards
without considering the seniority of the members
would be addressed, if it is made clear that any
further allotment to be made by respondent No.3
- Society could be only based on the seniority list
of the members approved by the concerned
Registrar of Co-operative Societies. This
submission, in my view, would address the major
grievance of the petitioners. It is further rightly
submitted that if the interim order is not modified,
it would certainly affect the other genuine
members who are waiting for allotment of sites
formed by the Society.
5. It is also urged during the course of
arguments by the learned senior counsel that the
Society has undertaken the task of formation of
layouts in different areas and if allotment of sites
even in these areas is prevented, it would affect
the Society and it members seriously.
6. Keeping in mind the facts and
circumstances of the case and also the interest of
the petitioners as well as respondent No.3 -
Society and its members, I am of the view that
the interim order granted on 10.03.2016 deserves
to be modified. Accordingly, the following
modification is made:
It is made clear that pending disposal of
these writ petitions, respondent No.3 - Society
shall not make any allotment/execution of sale
deed without following the seniority list of its
members as approved by the concerned Registrar
of Co-operative Societies. Interim order passed
on 10.03.2016 is accordingly modified."
(emphasis supplied)
82. A bare reading of the interim orders dated
10.03.2016 and 07.08.2017 in the light of the allegations
made in Writ Petition Nos.9869-9876 of 2016, makes it clear
that the allegations made by the petitioners was in respect of
the functioning of the Executive Committee especially in the
matter of allotment of sites without getting the seniority list of
members approved by the Joint Registrar of Co-operative
Societies in contravention of bye-laws, which led to passing of
the order dated 10.03.2016 and modification of the order
dated 07.08.2017. By no stretch of imagination, it could be
said that the interim order dated 07.08.2017 only refers to
the sites formed in Kudlasingsandra Layout and not
Chikkanahalli-Kammanahalli Layout. If the averments made in
the writ petitions and the interim order passed by the writ
court are taken into consideration, the intention of the Court
was very clear in restraining respondent No.3 - Society from
making allotment or execution of sale deeds without following
the seniority list of the members as approved by the Registrar
of Co-operative Societies. There is absolutely no ambiguity in
the order to convey a different meaning.
83. The next contention taken by the accused is with
regard to the non-joinder of necessary parties. It is
contended that even though a joint decision was taken by the
Managing Committee to alienate the sites in favour of M/s.Sai
Reniit Projects Private Limited, only accused Nos.1 to 7 are
arrayed as accused, which is bad under law. Even though, it
is tried to be contended that the first complainant was also
part of the Resolution that is passed and resolved to alienate
site bearing Nos.355-A and 355-B, the same was denied by
PW1 and there are no materials to substantiate such
contention. Moreover, admittedly, accused No.1 executed the
sale deed Exs.P6 to 8 representing the Society and accused
Nos.2 to 7 have signed it as witnesses. None of the other
Directors of the Society have taken part in executing the sale
deed. Mere taking a decision to alienate the property may not
give rise to initiation of the proceedings for contempt of Court,
but willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court is as
a result of alienating the sites in favour of third party under
the registered sale deed, which is a deliberate and calculated
move on the part of the accused which would amount to
contempt of Court. Therefore, the contention of the learned
counsel for the accused in that regard, cannot be accepted.
84. The other contention taken by the accused that
accused Nos.2 to 7 have signed the sale deed only as
witnesses and not as executants and therefore, they have not
committed any contempt of Court also cannot be accepted in
view of the fact that accused Nos.2 to 7 have taken part in
the meetings, where a decision was consciously taken to
alienate the property, the President i.e., accused No.1 was
authorized to execute the sale deed and further more,
accused Nos.2 to 7 have signed the sale deed as attesting
witnesses. Under such circumstances, the contention of the
learned counsel that the attesting witnesses are not supposed
to know the contents of the documents and therefore, they
have not committed any offence, also cannot be accepted.
85. An attempt was also made to contend that the
proceedings for contempt of Court is barred by limitation.
Section 20 of Contempt of Courts Act describes the limitation
for action for contempt within a period of one year from the
date on which the contempt is alleged to have been
committed. The contempt in the present case is alleged to
have been committed on 03.03.2020 when sale deed was
executed alienating site Nos.355-A and 355-B in favour of
third party. The petition for contempt was filed by the
complainants on 29.09.2020. Therefore, it cannot be said that
the petition is barred by limitation. The contention raised by
the learned counsel for the accused that the interim order of
was passed on 07.08.2017 and from that date to the date of
filing the petition, is beyond the date of limitation, cannot be
accepted on any count. Therefore, the said contention that
the petition is barred by limitation is to be rejected.
86. The contention taken by the accused that the
Society was under financial crunch cannot be a compelling
reason to disobey the order passed by this Court. If at all,
there was any confusion regarding application of the interim
order dated 07.08.2017, the accused were having liberty to
seek clarification from the Court at any time. But they have
not chosen to do so. On the other hand, by an ingenious idea
of getting legal opinion to the effect that if the sites in
question are sold by executing the sale deed, the same would
not amount to contempt of Court, the accused are trying to
hoodwink the Court, which is not permissible under law.
87. The contention of the accused that the Society has
not acted hurriedly in alienating the property also cannot be
accepted in view of the sequence of events referred to above.
The intention of the accused was only to make a ground to
somehow alienate the sites and at the same time, try to avoid
initiation of the contempt proceedings. The accused have
made sufficient efforts in that regard which are apparent on
the face of the record. We do not have a shred of doubt
about the intention of the part of the accused to commit
willful disobedience of the order of this Court. Therefore, we
are of the opinion that the complainants are successful in
proving the guilt of accused Nos.1 to 7 beyond reasonable
doubt.
88. It is pertinent to note that an attempt was made
by the accused to impute ill-will motive against the
complainants in general and against PW1 in particular to
initiate contempt proceedings. The accused have gone to the
extent of suggesting to PW1 that he had demanded Rs.60
lakh from the accused before framing of charge. The
suggestion was categorically denied by PW1. There are
absolutely no material even to probabalise such contention.
89. Even though the accused have contended that the
order dated 07.08.2017 refers to the site formed in the
Kudlasingasandra Layout and not in the site formed in
Chikkanahalli-Kammanahalli Layout, the said contention was
rejected by this Court vide order dated 26.11.2021 holding as
under:
"17. Though a contention was raised by
learned counsel for the accused that the properties
in Schedules "A" and "B" are situated at
Chikkanahalli-Kammanahalli and not Singasandra
Village and therefore there is no violation, the
same cannot be accepted in view of the fact that,
it is also not in dispute that the Society formed
four layouts in different villages. The dispute
raised under Section 68 of the Act in respect of the
entire Society and the interim prayer sought by
the complainants to direct respondent
No.3/Society not to allot or transfer any site
formed in any layout by it to any person including
its members until the seniority list of members,
who are seeking for allotment of sites from
respondent No.3/Society, is prepared following the
rules in respect of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Rules,
1995 is obtained by respondent No.3/Society."
(emphasis supplied)
90. The accused have taken a specific defence in
paragraph 9 of the reply statement dated 15.12.2020 to
contend that on wrong advise, the accused have executed the
sale deed and it was not an intentional or willful disobedience.
On the other hand, it is a bonafide mistake due to the wrong
legal advise given by their advocate. By referring to this
stand taken by the accused in the reply statement, this Court
vide order dated 26.11.2021 referred to above held that it is
nothing but admission of violation of the interim order passed
by the learned Single Judge by alienating the site under the
registered sale deed. The Court in paragraph Nos.23 to 25
held as under:
"23. It is well settled that the litigants
approach this contempt Court after completion of
all other reliefs as the last resort before this
Court. When a contempt petition is filed alleging
disobedience, it is the duty of the Court to verify
on the basis of the record after giving an
opportunity to the accused persons whether they
have violated the order of the Court or not. After
carefully perused the material available on record
and on hearing the learned counsel for the
parties, it clearly indicates that there is a wilful
disobedience by the accused persons.
24. It is also not in dispute that the
complainants were members of
respondent/Society like others have become
members of respondent No.3/Society with a hope
and trust that they will be benefited from
respondent No.3/Society and the Society was
formed to protect the interest of respondent
No.3/Society and admittedly, both the
complainants and the accused persons are
employees of M/s. Hindustan Aeronautics Limited
("HAL") and respondent No.3/Society was formed
with an intention to ensure protection of all the
employees of HAL. The complainants and others
who enrolled as members of the respondent
No.3/Society to get a site with their hard earned
money out of their employment. Though the
accused persons are also employees of he
Society, merely because they become the
President and Directors of respondent
No.3/Society, they cannot cheat the other
members of the 3rd respondent. That is not the
intention of formation of any co-operative society.
Therefore, the contention of learned counsel for
the accused persons that there is no violation of
the interim order cannot be accepted.
25. It is well settled that the society to act
as a trustee of its members, it cannot ditch in
another member merely as President and
Directors. Like any other organ of the State,
judiciary is also manned by human beings, but
the function of judiciary is distinctly different from
other organs of the State, in the sense its function
is divine. Today, judiciary is the repository of
public faith. It is the trustee of the people. It is
the last hope of the people. After every knock at
all the doors failed people approach the judiciary
as the last resort. It is the only temple
worshipped by every citizen of this nation,
regardless of religion, caste, sex or place of birth.
It is high time the judiciary must take utmost care
to see that temple of justice do not crack from
inside, which will lead to catastrophe in the justice
delivery system resulting in the failure of Public
Confidence in the system. Therefore, it is the duty
of the Court to protect the interest of the litigants
in accordance with law."
(emphasis supplied)
This observation made by this Court is relevant till today
while considering the contention of the parties after adducing
the evidence.
91. Learned counsel for the accused placing reliance
on Section 13 of the Contempt of Court Act, contended that in
certain circumstances, the contempt is not punishable.
Section provides the instance where the Court is not satisfied
that the contempt of such a nature that it substantially
interferes, or tends substantially to interfere with the due
course of justice or if there is justification by truth as a valid
defence. The Court if satisfied that it is in the public interest
and the request for invoking such defence is bonafide,
whereby Section 13 of the Act could be invoked, but not
otherwise. The facts and circumstances discussed above does
not in any way satisfy any of the ingredients of Section 13 of
the Act. Therefore, the accused are not entitled for the benefit
of said provision of law.
92. Learned counsel for the accused at the end of his
arguments submitted that even in spite of materials on
record, if the Court were to come to the conclusion that the
accused have committed the contempt of Court, then the
accused Nos.1, 3, 6 and 7 will tender unconditional apology
and the charge against them may be dropped.
93. Section 12 of the Act deals with punishment for
contempt of Court. It also provides for discharging the
accused or remitting the punishment awarded on apology
being made for the satisfaction of the Court. The explanation
appended to the proviso reads that the apology shall not be
rejected merely on the ground that it is qualified or
conditional if the accused makes it bonafide. Therefore, even
though the apology was offered to be tendered by few of the
accused, the Court must be satisfied with regard to the
bonafides of such accused in tendering the apology.
94. The contempt petition was filed during 2020
making specific allegations. In the reply statement as
extracted above, the accused have specifically admitted
commission of contempt of Court blaming on the wrong
advise given by the advocate, but in spite of that, they
proceeded to contest the contempt proceedings on various
grounds, most of which, are flimsy. The conduct of the
accused even in executing the registered sale deed and
alienating the site in favor of M/s. Sai Reniit Projects Private
Limited, as discussed above discloses that there are no
bonafides on the part of the accused, but on the other hand,
the accused have taken sufficient precaution to avoid the
proceedings for contempt of Court and getting the opinion
after resolving to sell the sites in favor of third party,
approving the draft sale deed and authorizing accused No.1 to
execute the sale deed was only a rouse to avoid the future
complications. Therefore, we are of the opinion that there are
no bonafides in the act committed by the accused or in the
offer made to tender unconditional apology by few of the
accused at the fag end of the trial, to accept the same.
VI - CONCLUSION
95. In view of the discussions held above, we are of
the opinion that the charge framed against accused Nos.1 and
accused Nos.2 to 7 are proved beyond reasonable doubt and
they are liable for conviction. Looking to the seriousness of
the offences committed by accused Nos.1 to 7 in disobeying
the order of the learned Single Judge, willfully and alienating
two sites in favour of third party, who is not a member of the
Society in clear violation of the interim order dated
07.08.2017, we are of the opinion that the accused may be
sentenced proportionately. Hence, we proceed to pass the
following:
VII - RESULT
(i) The contempt petition is allowed.
(ii) Acting under Section 11 of Contempt of Courts
Act, 1971, accused Nos.1 to 7 are convicted
for the contempt of Court as defined under
Section 2(b) of the Act i.e. for willful
disobedience of the interim order dated
07.08.2017 in Writ Petition Nos.9869-9876 of
2016 (CS-RES) passed by the learned Single
Judge.
(iii) Acting under Section 12 of the Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971, accused Nos.1 to 7 are
sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for
a period of three months with fine of
Rs.2,000/- each and in default to pay the fine,
each of the accused shall undergo simple
imprisonment for further period of fifteen days.
(iii) Registrar (Judicial) is directed to issue the
warrant of commitment and detention in
respect of the accused-contemnor in Form
No.III as contemplated under Rule 16(i) of the
High Court of Karnataka (Contempt of Court
Proceedings) Rules, 1981, forthwith.
The service rendered by Sri G V Shashikumar, learned
Additional Government Advocate, who was appointed as Court
Commissioner to represent the complainants, to arrive at this
conclusion is appreciated and the same is placed on record.
The High Court Legal Services Committee is directed to pay
remuneration of Rs.10,000/- as Honorarium to the learned
Additional Government Advocate, appointed as Court
Commissioner.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
PN * &*bgn/-
