Karnataka High Court
Shri A Vinay Krishna vs Dr D B Nateshand on 10 January, 2023
Bench: B.Veerappa, K S Hemalekha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.VEERAPPA
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA
C.C.C. No.651/2021 (CIVIL)
BETWEEN:
1. SHRI A. VINAY KRISHNA
S/O. SHRI A. KRISHNA BHAT,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
SUPPLY CHAIN MD
MAXIM SEMICONSTRUCTERS,
4499, MACKBETH CIRCLE, FREMONT,
CA.94555.
2. DR. A. MALINI
W/O. DR. RAMACHANDRA V. BHAT
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR,
INDIRA GANDHI MEDICAL COLLEGE
AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE,
PUDUCHERRY - 605 009.
BOTH COMPLAINANT NOS.1 AND 2
ARE REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY,
SRI A. KRISHNA BHAT
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
257/1, KEDUVADKA,
KUBAKA VILLAGE AND POST,
PUTTUR - 574 220.
3. ROYAL ENCLAVE SITE OWNERS
WELFARE ASSOCIATION (R)
NO.43/48, 5TH CROSS, 17TH MAIN ROAD,
KRISHNADEVARAYA CIRCLE
-2-
VIJAYANAGAR 2ND STAGE, MYSORE.
REPRESENTED BY PRESIDENT
SMT. M.N. PREMAKUMARI
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
D/O. S. NARASIMHAIAH,
#134, 23RD MAIN ROAD,
'B' BLOCK, VIJAYANAGAR 3RD STAGE,
MYSURU - 570 030. ... COMPLAINANTS
(BY SRI L.M.CHIDANANDAYYA, ADVOCATE;
SRI KIRAN KUMAR, HCGP TO ASSIST THE COURT ON
BEHALF OF COMPLAINANTS)
AND:
1. DR. D.B. NATESHAND
THE COMMISSIONER,
THE MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
JHANSI LAKSHMI BAI ROAD,
MYSORE - 570 005.
2. THE SECRETARY
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE - 560 001. ... PROFORMA RESPONDENTS
3. SHRI. V. BHASKAR REDDY
PARTNER OF M/S. ROYAL ENCLAVE
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM,
S/O. MR. BALAVEN KATA REDDY,
#412, FIRST FLOOR, WING-4,
SHOBHA DEVELOPER APARTMENT,
NO.18, SARAKKI MAIN ROAD,
J.P. NAGAR 1ST PHASE,
BANGALORE - 560 078. ... ACCUSED
(R-1 AND R-2 ARE PROFORMA RESPONDENTS;
SRI K.K. VASANTH, ADVOCATE FOR A-3)
THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF
THE CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT, BY THE COMPLAINANT,
-3-
WHEREIN HE PRAYS THAT THE HON'BLE COURT MAY BE
PLEASED TO SUMMON, PROSECUTE AND PUNISH THE 3RD
ACCUSED FOR DELIBERATE, WILFUL DISOBEDIENCE OF THE
ORDER DATED 20.02.2020 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN
W.P.NO.10950/2016 AND ALSO TWO UNDERTAKINGS DATED
04.04.2019 AND 11.04.2019.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDER ON 06/12/2022, COMING FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
OF ORDERS THIS DAY, K.S. HEMALEKHA J., PRONOUNCED
THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The present contempt petition is filed under Article
215 of the Constitution of India read with Sections 11
and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter
referred to as "the Act" for short) to prosecute and
punish the 3rd accused-contemnor for deliberate willful
disobedience of the order dated 20.02.2020, passed by
the learned single Judge in W.P.No.10950/2016 and the
undertaking dated 04.4.2019 and 11.4.2019 vide
Annexures - J & K respectively.
2. The case of the complainant is that the 3rd
accused-contemnor had got the plan sanctioned from
the 1st accused-Mysore Urban Development Authority
("MUDA") for the purpose of developing the residential
layout in an area measuring 38 acres 13 guntas land
situated at Maratikyatanahalli of Jayapura Hobli, Mysore
Taluk. It is the grievance of the complainant that the
members of the 3rd complainant-Royal Enclave Site
Owners Welfare Association(R) ("Association") and the
complainant Nos.1 and 2 have purchased sites from the
3rd accused-contemnor has not completed the layout as
per the condition imposed by the 1st accused authority-
MUDA while sanctioning the plan. It is the grievance of
the complainants that the request made to the 3rd
accused-contemnor to complete the project and enable
the owners of the sites to make use of their property
was not heeded to. Since the 3rd accused-contemnor did
not complete the project, the complainant Nos.1 and 2
approached the Upa Lokayukta with a complaint that the
1st accused- authority is hand in glove with the 3rd
accused-contemnor and the interest of the site owners is
not protected in terms of the conditions imposed by the
authority as per Section 34 of the Karnataka Urban
Development Authorities Act, 1987 ("the Act 1987" for
short). It is the case of the complainant that the Upa
Lokayukta directed the MUDA to initiate action
immediately or to be prepared to face the
consequences. Consequently, the authorities of the 1st
accused-MUDA issued notices to the 3rd accused-
contemnor appraising that if the project is not
completed in terms of the sanctioned plan, the 1st
respondent-MUDA would take over the project and
complete the same as provided under Section 34 of the
Act 1987.
3. It is the further case of the complainant that
as there was no action taken by the 3rd accused-
contemnor to comply with the issuance of notice by the
1st respondent-MUDA was constrained to file
W.P.No.10950/2016 seeking a direction to the 3rd
accused-contemnor to start and complete the
development work by providing all amenities to the
layout called "Royal Enclave" situated in
Maratikyatanahalli, Jayapura Hobli, Mysore Taluk, as
approved by the 1st respondent-MUDA at Annexure-E.
It is submitted by the complainant that the 3rd accused-
contemnor was required to form a layout by providing
various amenities as promised to the complainants
before making an application for release of sites for
execution of the sale deeds. On the basis of the release
order issued by the 1st respondent-MUDA, the 3rd
accused-contemnor sold the sites and executed sale
deeds in favour of the complainants and other members
of the complainant-Association and received the entire
sale consideration. After filing of the writ petition, notice
was ordered to the 3rd accused-contemnor and the 3rd
accused-contemnor, even after receipt of the notice, did
not make any effort to appear before the writ Court and
hence, learned single Judge was forced to issue bailable
warrant against 3rd accused-contemnor and on the
issuance bailable warrant, 3rd accused-contemnor
appeared and the matter was heard by the learned
single Judge from time to time and it was submitted by
the complainant that the 3rd accused-contemnor filed an
undertaking before the learned single Judge on
04.04.2019 stating that he will complete the entire civil
work within five months and further on 11.04.2019 an
application of undertaking was again filed by the 3rd
accused-contemnor stating that he would comply the
civil working within a period of five months. Learned
single Judge, on the undertaking given by the 3rd
accused-contemnor passed an order on 20.02.2020
directing the accused to commence and complete the
entire civic works such as underground drainage, rain
water drains, culverts, formation of roads, demarcation
of sites, numbering sites, laying of water pipelines in
Sy.Nos.77/1, 77/4 and 77/5 and that the entire work to
be completed within a period of five months.
4. It is also submitted by the complainants that
the undertaking given to the Court on the basis of
which the order was passed by the learned Judge has
not been complied with. The complainant stated that the
3rd accused-contemnor has committed deliberate, willful
disobedience of the directions issued by the learned
single Judge and sought to initiate appropriate action
against the 3rd accused-contemnor.
5. This Court, on the contempt petition, issued
notice to the 3rd accused-contemnor on 01.09.2021, the
counsel appeared for the 3rd accused-contemnor and
sought time to file affidavit and accordingly, the matter
was adjourned and listed on 21.10.2021, on the very
day, the 3rd accused-contemnor filed his written
objections to the contempt petition stating and
admitting the filing of an undertaking on 04.04.2019 and
another undertaking by way of an application on
11.04.2019 and also admitted that on the basis of the
affidavit learned single Judge had issued a direction to
the 3rd accused-contemnor to complete the entire civic
work within five months from 20.02.2020, but the
grievance of the 3rd accused-contemnor in his statement
of objections was that due to the out break of pandemic,
he could not complete the work undertaken by him
within the prescribed time and later the contractor by
name Suresh also did not perform his part of work and
submitted that the 3rd accused-contemnor was in
depression, anxiety and had suicidal tendency and was
under constant psychological treatment. It is further
stated by the 3rd accused-contemnor that he had
entered into Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU")
with the contractor, who had in turn undertook to
complete the entire civil work within a period of four
months and as stipulated in the MOU. It is further
stated that the 3rd accused-contemnor was not in a
position to complete the work within the stipulated time
as he was not in a good health condition and requested
this Court to allow 3rd accused-contemnor to complete
the civil work taking the help of the said contractors
within the stipulated period of four months as mentioned
in the MOU.
- 10 -
6. After framing of charges, in view of the
provisions of Rule 11 of the High Court of Karnataka
(Contempt of Court Proceedings) Rules 1981, learned
HCGP Sri Kiran Kumar was directed to assist the Court
on behalf of the complainant.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the
complainant and learned counsel appearing for the 3rd
accused-contemnor.
8. Learned HCGP Sri Kiran Kumar appearing on
behalf of the complainant would submit that the accused
has deliberately and willfully violated the undertaking
dated 04.04.2019 and 11.04.2019 and on which basis,
the learned single Judge has disposed of the Writ
Petition No.10950/2016 on 20.02.2020 and the said
order has reached finality. Learned counsel would
submit that there are about 300 cases have been filed
against 3rd accused-contemnor and he has been playing
fraud on the customers by giving false assurance about
- 11 -
forming a layout and allotting the sites. It is further
submitted that the financial difficulties as stated by the
3rd accused-contemnor would not be sustainable for the
reason that the complainants have paid the amount in
crores as stated by them in their evidence and the same
having not been denied by DW.1 - A3 contemnor in his
evidence. Learned counsel would submit that the 3rd
accused-contemnor is a constant defaulter and he is in
the habit of violating the orders passed by this Court.
As could be seen from the order more particularly on
12.1.2022, wherein the contempt petition was dropped
on the submission and undertaking given by the 3rd
accused-contemnor that the order of the learned single
Judge would be completed, provided a month's time is
given and in spite of sufficient opportunities afforded by
this Court, the 3rd accused-contemnor has neither
complied nor made any effort to comply with the order
and thus, sought to punish the 3rd accused-contemnor
for the offence punishable under Article 215 of the
- 12 -
Constitution of India read with Sections 11 and 12 of the
Contempt of Courts Act.
9. Per contra, learned counsel the 3rdaccused-
contemnor Sri K.K.Vasanth would submit that the
contempt petition is clearly barred by limitation as per
Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act. Learned
counsel would submit that the doctrine of merger is
applicable to the 3rd accused-contemnor by placing
reliance on the undertaking of the accused, the learned
single Judge has passed an order and as such, there
would not be any violation of the Court order. According
to the learned counsel, the undertaking given by the
accused does not amount to any willful disobedience to
come under the purview of Section 2(b) of the Civil
Contempt of Courts Act. It is further submitted that
though there is violation in complying the order is not a
willful disobedience and sought to drop the contempt
petition.
- 13 -
10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties
and on perusal of the material on record, the point that
arises for our consideration is:
"Whether the complainant has made out a case
to punish the 3rd accused-contemnor under
Article 215 the Constitution of India read with
Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts
Act in the peculiar facts and circumstances of
the present case?"
11. We have considered the rival contentions
urged by the learned counsel for the parties and perused
the papers carefully.
12. It is not in dispute that the 3rd accused-
contemnor had filed an undertaking in the form of
affidavit dated 04.04.2019, which reads as under:
"I, V. Bhaskar Reddy S/o Bala Venkata Reddy
aged about 53 years, R/o No.1 & 2 Shresta, 4th
Main, Kuvempu Nagar, Doddakalsandra
Bangalore do hereby solemnly affirm and state
on oath as follows:
- 14 -
1. The present writ petition has been filed
seeking for a direction against the 1st
respondent to complete the layout by providing
all facilities/amenities in terms of the
sanctioned layout plan under Section 34 of the
Urban Development Authority Act. This Hon'ble
Court by orders dated 23.10.2018, taking note
of the fact that there was a release of the
property in excess of the developed area, had
directed the issuance of bailable warrant. I
have appeared before this Hon'ble Court on
13.11.2018 and the explanation for previous
non-appearance was accepted by making it
clear that I have to be present as and when
called upon. The matter thereafter stood
posted to 20.11.2018. On 20.11.2018, 1 had
filed Statement of Objections in the open
court, however, my counsel had stated that
outstanding works would be completed and
therefore, this Hon'ble Court directed affidavit
to be filed in this regard on 27.11.2018.
2. Accordingly, on 27.11.2018, an affidavit
was filed stating that steps will be taken for
completion of the entire project within a period
of one year six months. It is in this context
that this Hon'ble Court observed that the
- 15 -
petitioners' interest needs to be secured and
therefore, there was a further direction for
filing an addl. Affidavit indicating certain
aspects and as such, further affidavit has been
filed. It is pursuant to the filing of the further
affidavit that this Hon'ble Court by orders
dated 3.12.2018 had clearly indicated that an
undertaking was to commence the
developmental works and if there was any
failure, extent of about 38,400 sq.ft of sital
area in Site Nos.366 to 382 and 421 to 432,
shall be offered as security for the work to be
undertaken.
3. I had entered into Memorandum of
Understanding with Mr.S.S. Gangadhar who
had promised to complete the entire work and
even when these proceedings were going on, I
had again contacted the said Mr.S.S.
Gangadhar who had promised that he would
immediately commence the work. It was based
on his assurances that such an undertaking
was given after the promise that other than
the sites, which is remained unsold, I do not
have any other source of money for the
purpose of completion and has to rely upon the
usufructs of the said properties for completion
- 16 -
of the present project. The copy of this MOU
has already been produced along with the
Statement of Objections as Annexure - R2.
4. However, the reliance on the Statement
of the said Mr.S.S. Gangadhar turned out to be
disastrous and he did not commence the
developmental works as promised by him.
5. The matter was again called on
28.03.2017 where this Hon'ble Court
specifically observed that I had not adhered to
the affidavit and that I have scant regard to
the orders dated 3.12.2018 and therefore, I
should be present before the court and to
explain regarding the non-adherence of the
undertaking. The matter was posted on
28.03.2019 on the basis of the Memo filed by
the 1st respondent which reported that no
developmental works had been undertaken
pursuant to the affidavit that had been filed.
6. I had made my best efforts and I do not
have any funds for the purpose of development
of this project but there are assets which are
available and in my control of which, I have
absolute alienable rights. The value of these
properties is much more than the actual cost of
- 17 -
the development. For want of liquidity, I am
unable to undertake the development and
further, the sites also cannot now be dealt with
on account of the orders dated 3.12.2018. This
piquant situation has been prevailed where
unless the sites remains unencumbered, I am
not in a position to generate funds and unless
funds are generated, I am not in a position to
undertake the developmental works.
Everything has become correlated. It is during
this process that in the last week, one
Mr.Suresh has come forward to undertake the
development on the same terms and
conditions as that of Annexure R2. He has
entered into negotiations and the person who
had brought him for negotiation is presently in
Chennai.
7. I am aware of the consequences of the
breach of undertaking and the breach thereof
is not unconditional inasmuch as the orders
dated 3.12.2018 clearly indicates that in the
event of there being any breach of
undertaking, the sites in question will have to
be offered as security for the due completion of
the works.
- 18 -
8. I reiterate that I will complete the
developmental works within a period of one
year and three months, as three months has
already lapsed in terms of my original affidavit
and I would require further period of two
months to commence the developmental
works.
9. I am also ensuring that the development
takes place as the remaining sites of which I
possess the absolute alienable rights or in the
undeveloped portions and secondly, in the
middle of the undeveloped portion, extent of
about 4 acres 30 guntas cannot be developed
on account of the pending civil litigations.
There are certain hurdles which I need to come
across but sofaras the amenities to the 1st and
2nd petitioners are concerned, I will ensure that
the immediate amenities such as road,
culverts, sewerage and drawing of the
electricity lines insofar as the properties of the
petitioners will be taken up on priority and will
be completed within a period of two months
from today. The first statement which has been
made before this Hon'ble Court clearly
indicates that the bonafides with which I have
approached this Hon'ble Court and I am
- 19 -
making my best efforts to ensure that there is
completion of my obligations which I had
undertaken and there are certain other
statutory obstacles as there is some technical
defect in the plan, which however, is not with
reference to the property of the petitioners.
10. I further state that there are portions in
the property measuring in all about 38 acres
and odd and in which about 18 acres has
already been developed and the sites of the
petitioners are adjoining the developed
portions. The affidavit that has been filed with
reference to the individual survey number as
has already been filed on 24.11.2018, it is a
practical difficulty which I have faced as most
of the other projects which had undertaken
had went into bad weather and there are
litigations which I am prosecuting on account
of which I have suffered a huge setback in the
business. However, I am not taking any
exception to the fact that I need to complete
my obligations insofar as the present
petitioners are concerned.
11. I undertake that from 8.4.2019, I will
commence the works in providing necessary
- 20 -
amenities, access, etc. to the sites of the
petitioners.
12. Insofar as the other amenities are
concerned including C.A. site and the park, this
portion has already released and relinquished
in favour of MUDA and it is for MUDA to
undertake the development of six plots which
is included in the amenities which has to be
provided. After the first phase of development,
which will take place in the first two months for
the properties of the petitioners, the remaining
portions will also be developed after getting
some technical glitches in the plan removed.
Therefore, a statutory process and subject
thereto, the development of the other
amenities to be provided in the layout will be
undertaken within a period of one year three
months, as has already been stated in the
earlier affidavit.
WHEREFORE, the 3rd respondent most
humbly prays that this Hon'ble Court be
pleased to extend the time by modifying the
earlier orders by permitting the 3rd respondent
to carry out the developmental works in
providing amenities such as roads, culverts,
- 21 -
storm water drains, connectivity of the
sewerage and drawing up of the electricity
lines insofar as the properties of the petitioners
are concerned within a period of two months
with the work commenced from 8.4.2019 and
pass such other orders as may be deemed
appropriate, under the circumstances of the
case, in the ends of justice."
13. And again on 11.04.2019 filed another
affidavit in the form of an application, which reads as
under:
"The 3rd respondent submits as under:
1. The 3rd respondent in furtherance of his
affidavit dated 4.4.2019 undertakes to
commence the works from 8.4.2019, has
commenced the work and already undertaken
the markings, the land leveling, site
demarcations and the road leveling work has
been undertaken till date with reference to I
phase of the work which he has stated will be
completed. The photographs of the property as
it existed prior to 4.4.2019 and the status of
the property as it exists today is produced for
the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court and the
- 22 -
same would reflect that there is very
substantial progress in a short span of time.
2. The 3rd respondent had already stated
that he did not have resources but
nonetheless, he is committed to complete the
developmental works. It has also been come
on record that there is an unsold/encumbered
sital of saleable area of about 40,000 sq.ft
consisted in various survey numbers. The 3rd
respondent had also stated that he had
entered into Memorandum of Understanding
for completion of the developmental works by
bartering the expenditures to be undertaken
with the sites of which he has complete
alienable rights. This document is also
produced as Annexure-R1 and for the purpose
of convenience, Annexure-R2 is also produced
along with this affidavit.
3. For various reasons, the development in
terms of MOU could not be undertaken and as
had already stated in his affidavit that he had
negotiated with one Mr.Suresh who has come
forward to undertake development on the
same terms and conditions, he is in a situation
where he is in a position to ensure that for the
- 23 -
complete development, leverage has to be
given to facilitate the completion of
development.
4. By orders dated 3.12.2018, it is
specifically stated that the unsold sites would
be offered as security for due completion of the
works.
5. Since a situation has arisen where unless
he barters the sites of which he has alienable
rights, he do not have other sources and
unless the sites are barted, he cannot
complete the development. In such
circumstances, the indulgence is required from
this Hon'ble Court and therefore, he is seeking
for the modification of the earlier orders in
permitting him to complete the development in
phased manner.
6. The 3rd respondent proposes to complete
the entire work in three phases and the details
of which is as per the schedule enclosed along
with this affidavit. The table given in schedule
have indicated that after the completion of the
I phase of works, the 1st respondent after
verification and certifying the completion of
works, may be directed to release the prorata
- 24 -
sites in favour of person who will be brought in
as a developer. In the II phase, as detailed in
the schedule, substantial works will be
undertaken and upon completion of the same,
the 1st respondent may certify the completion
and to release further sites in favour of 3rd
respondent and the developer. Similarly, the
III phase will also be completed. The time
schedule for completion is also indicated in the
schedule and he will make best endeavor to
complete the same as per the previous
undertakings and also directions of this Hon'ble
Court.
7. Since it is specifically stated that unless
the development is carried out and certified by
the 1st respondent in phased manner, the sites
need not be dealt with either by means or by
the developer, the interest of all the stake
holders/site holders will be safeguarded with
due certification of the 1st respondent of the
completion of such works. In a situation of this
nature, an equitable order of the present
nature under the supervision of the orders of
this Hon'ble Court would only ensure that the
development is also carried out in accordance
with law. It is also under the control of the 1st
- 25 -
respondent being Town Planning Authority, the
beneficiaries will be of the site owners who
have purchased the property and at the same
time, it will facilitate the fulfillment of the
obligations of the 3rd respondent under the
Statute as also the orders of this Hon'ble
Court.
WHEREFORE, the 3rd respondent most
humbly prays that this Hon'ble Court be
pleased to place the averments made in this
application on record and to modify the earlier
orders dated 20.11.2018. 27.11.2018.
3.12.2018 and 28.03.2019 by directing the 1st
respondent to release the sites on completion
of phase I, phase II and phase III, as per the
schedule to the application and to release the
sites as indicated in the schedule and pass
such other orders as may be deemed
appropriate, in the ends of justice."
14. On the basis of the affidavits filed by the 3rd
accused-contemnor, the learned Single Judge was
pleased to disposed of W.P.10950/2016 vide order dated
20.02.2020 and the relevant portion of the order is at
para Nos.8 and 9, which reads as under:
- 26 -
"8. In view of the above, this petition
stands disposed of in the following terms:
1. The third respondent shall commence all
civic works such as underground drainage,
rain water drains, culverts, formation of
roads, demarcation of sites, numbering
sites, laying of water pipe lines in
Sy.Nos.77/1, 77/4 and 77/5 and complete
the same within a period of five months as
undertaken in the schedule to
I.A.No.1/2019.
2. The third respondent shall inform the first
respondent authorities about completion of
the first phase of the works immediately at
the end of five months or even prior to
that if the first phase is completed as and
when the request is made by the third
respondent, the authorities of MUDA shall
undertake inspection of the works and
make sure that the works as stated in the
schedule with respect to first phase have
been completed and thereafter on being
satisfied, release 12000 sq. ft. of
developed sital area to the third
respondent-Firm.
- 27 -
3. Similarly on completion of the second
phase work, the third respondent shall
intimate the first respondent authorities
and the authorities shall follow the same
procedure as was directed in the case of
the first phase.
4. However, with regard to the third phase
i.e., the final phase, the first respondent-
authorities have to make sure that not
only the civic works with respect to
Sy.Nos.75 and 45/1 as stated in the
schedule has been completed but also of
the civic works and development works
with respect to the entire project has been
completed in terms of the sanction plan
and conditions imposed in the sanction
plan.
5. It is only after the authorities make sure
that the development works of the entire
project is complete, shall the first
respondent authorities release the balance
of 14400 sq. ft. of developed sital area in
favour of the third respondent.
- 28 -
9. Needless to observe that this
petition is disposed of in the above terms,
based on the undertaking given by the third
respondent. If for some reason if the third
respondent is unable to fulfil the obligation
undertaken before this Court, the petitioners
are free to move this Court by filing another
petition on the same cause of action.
It is ordered accordingly."
15. This Court on 21.10.2021 passed a detailed
order considering the objections of the 3rd accused-
contemnor and in view of the admissions made, held
that there is no need for further enquiry as it is a clear
case of contempt. However, this Court, vide order dated
10.01.2022 afforded an opportunity to the 3rd accused-
contemnor to comply with the order and vide order
dated 21.10.2021, the 3rd accused-contemnor was
directed to be present before the Court on the next date
of hearing. On 18.11.2021, none appeared for the
accused in spite of the detailed order passed on
21.10.2021 and as there was no representation on
- 29 -
behalf of the 3rd accused-contemnor, bailable warrant
was issued to the 3rd accused-contemnor. In spite of
the order issuing bailable warrant to the 3rd accused-
contemnor, a report was submitted by the learned
Government Advocate stating that the 3rd accused-
contemnor has vacated the house and is unable to be
traced in the present address and hence, warrant could
not be served. On 02.12.2021, this Court again issued a
non-bailable warrant to the 3rd accused-contemnor with
a direction to the jurisdictional police to trace the
accused and produce him before the Court within three
weeks. Even though there was effort made by Sub-
Inspector of Police, J.P.Nagar Police Station, the 3rd
accused-contemnor was not traceable and a report was
submitted on 04.01.2022 and again on the said date,
further three weeks time was granted to the
jurisdictional police to trace the accused and to produce
before the Court. On 10.01.2022, the 3rd accused-
contemnor was produced by the Sub-Inspector of Police
- 30 -
and Head Constable of J.P. Nagar Police Station at 1.30
p.m. and a detailed order came to be passed on
10.01.2022 by this Court which reads as under:
"The present contempt petition is filed by
the complainants against respondent-accused
No.3 to take action against him under Sections
11 and 12 of Contempt of Court Act, for his
willful disobedience of the order passed by the
learned Single Judge made in Writ Petition
No.10950 of 2016, wherein, the learned Single
Judge on the basis of affidavit and the
undertaking given by respondent-accused No.3
dated 04.04.2019 and 11.04.2019 disposed of
the writ petition on 20.02.2020. In terms of
the undertaking, respondent-accused No.3 was
directed to commence all civil works, such as,
underground drainage, rain water drains,
culverts, formation of roads, demarcation of
sites, numbering sites, laying of water pipe
lines in Sy.Nos.77/1, 77/4 and 77/5 and
complete the same within a period of five
months as undertaken in the Schedule to IA.1
of 2019 and issued totally five directions.
Since the order passed by the learned Single
Judge and the undertaking given by
- 31 -
respondent-accused No.3 is not complied with,
the complainant was forced to file the present
contempt petition on 25.08.2021.
2. This Court by order dated
01.09.2021 has issued emergent notice to
respondent-accused No.3. Accordingly,
Sriyuths.B Siddeswara, Suresh and B K
Chandan, learned counsels filed power on
23.09.2021. When the matter was posted on
23.09.2021, Sri.B Siddeswara, learned counsel
sought for time and two weeks time was
granted to enable him to file the affidavit.
3. When the matter came up before
this Court on 21.10.2021, Sri.B K Chandan,
learned counsel for the accused filed written
objections of accused No.3 along with
documents stating that he could not complete
the work within the time stipulated by this
Court. Therefore, this court observed that, the
objections clearly depicts that the accused has
disobeyed the order passed by the learned
Single Judge. It is a clear case of contempt. It
is not the case of accused No.3 that due to
COVID-19, he was outpatient and therefore, he
could not complete the construction work
within the time stipulated. He has not filed
- 32 -
any application for extension of time before the
learned Single Judge. Therefore, this Court
cannot extend the time. In view of the
admission made in the objections, there is no
need for further enquiry as it is a clear case of
contempt. In order to give one more
opportunity, respondent-accused No.3 was
directed to be present before the Court on the
next date of hearing.
4. When the matter was posted on
18.11.2021, none appeared for the accused
including Sri.B K Chandan, learned counsel.
Therefore, this Court issued bailable warrant.
When the matter was posted on 02.12.2021,
again none appeared for the accused.
Thereby, this Court issued non-bailable
warrant to respondent-accused No.3 through
jurisdictional police. Again the matter came to
be posted on 04.01.2022 and on the request
made by learned Additional Government
Advocate on instructions of Sub Inspector of
Police, JP Nagar that in spite of making all
efforts, they could not trace accused No.3,
three weeks time was granted to trace the
accused and produce him before the Court
- 33 -
(either dead or alive) without seeking further
time.
5. Today, Sri.Karagaiah H, Sub
Inspector of Police and Sri.Anand, Head
Constable of JP Nagar Police Station have
produced respondent-accused No.3 at 1.30
p.m. before this Court. Thereby, we have
posted the matter specially at 2.30 p.m.
6. Sri.V Bhaskar Reddy, respondent-
accused No.3 represented by Sri.B K Chandan,
learned Counsel submits before the Court that
he will commence the work within a period of
one month from today. To that effect, he will
file an affidavit before this Court.
7. In the interest of justice, we post
the matter on 12.01.2022 to file the affidavit
and undertaking before the Court.
8. Since respondent-accused No.3 has
undertaken to file an affidavit to that effect, he
is ordered to be released from the custody.
However, he shall ensure to file the affidavit on
12.01.2022.
9. Office to show the name of Sri.B K
Chandan, as learned counsel for respondent-
accused No.3.
- 34 -
10. The efforts made by the Sub
Inspector of Police and the Head Constable to
trace and produce respondent-accused No.3
before the Court is appreciated and the same
is placed on record."
16. On 10.01.2022, though the 3rd accused-
contemnor evaded the service of notice of this Court
time and again, in order to afford an opportunity to
comply with the order of learned single Judge, the
matter was posted on 12.01.2022 to the 3rd accused-
contemnor and was released from the custody.
17. When the matter was posted on 12.01.2022,
an undertaking was given before this Court by 3rd
accused-contemnor, who had appeared through video
conference and reiterated the undertaking affidavit
dated 12.01.2022 submitted before this Court that he
would undertake to commence the work within one
month and that the same would be reported to this
Court. Accordingly, this contempt petition was disposed
with liberty to revive the petition if 3rd accused-
- 35 -
contemnor fails to fulfill the terms of undertaking given
in the affidavit dated 12.01.2022.
18. It is also not in dispute that pursuant to filing
of the contempt petition, vide order dated 12.01.2022
on an undertaking submitted by the 3rd accused-
contemnor, the contempt petition was dropped on the
earlier occasion. The relevant portion of the undertaking
of 3rd accused-contemnor dated 12.01.2022 at
paragraph No.3 reads as under:
"3. I state that meanwhile, the complainant
had filed this above civil contempt proceedings
in which due to my health issue I could not
appear before this Hon'ble Court hence this
Court was pleased to issue Non Bailable
warrant. Subsequently, the jurisdictional police
had arrested and produced me before this
Hon'ble Court, where I have undertaken to
commence the work within one month, in
unavoidable circumstances (due to
COVID/government restrictions) I may be
permitted for some more time, hence this
affidavit."
- 36 -
19. And accordingly, the contempt petition was
dropped on an undertaking given by the 3rd accused-
contemnor that he will commence the work within one
month and file progress report before this Court time
and again and in the event, the undertaking given by
the 3rd accused-contemnor is not fulfilled then this Court
would take serious view and initiate proceedings against
the 3rd accused-contemnor without there being any
enquiry conducted against him.
20. The 3rd accused-contemnor having failed to
comply even after the undertaking given before this
Court on 12.01.2022, the complainant has filed
application for revival of the order dated 12.01.2022.
21. As the 3rd accused-contemnor did not comply
with the terms as per the undertaking submitted by him
before this Court on 12.01.2022, the complainant filed
I.A.No.1/2022 for recalling the order dated 12.01.2022.
Subsequently, when the matter was listed on
- 37 -
23.06.2022, the undertaking given having not been
complied with, this Court again issued non-bailable
warrant to 3rd accused-contemnor through the
jurisdictional police. On 30.06.2022, the non-bailable
warrant issued to 3rd accused-contemnor was not
executed as 3rd accused-contemnor was not traceable in
the address given and on 14.07.2022, the 3rd accused-
contemnor was secured by the J.P.Nagar Police with
great difficulty and the learned Government Advocate
submitted that there were 275 warrants issued against
the 3rdaccused-contemnor and sought for imposing
stringent conditions on the 3rd accused-contemnor while
enlarging him on bail. Smt. Renuka, the wife of the 3rd
accused-contemnor undertook that she would be a
surety and would ensure his presence on each date of
hearing and the non-bailable warrant issued on
23.06.2022 was recalled. Pursuant to the order dated
14.07.2022, when the matter was listed on 18.07.2022
the wife of the accused filed an affidavit that 3rd
- 38 -
accused-contemnor is suffering from severe
hypertension as he had lost his mother on 11.06.2022
and stated before the Court that on every date of
hearing, that 3rd accused-contemnor would be present
and the matter was adjourned to be listed after three
weeks to report amicable settlement, if any. Finally,
when the matter was listed on 11.08.2022, another
week's time was granted on the request of learned
counsel for the 3rd accused-contemnor for compliance of
order passed by this Court, failing which, this Court
directed 3rd accused-contemnor to be present before the
Court for "framing of charges". In the application filed
by the complainant to recall the order dated 12.01.2022,
the contempt petition came to be dropped reserving
liberty to the complainants to file an application for
revival of the order. Accordingly, I.A.No.1/2022 was
allowed and the contempt petition was restored to
original file. Again at that stage i.e., on 18.08.2022,
when the 3rd accused-contemnor was called
- 39 -
to the witness box to frame the charges, learned
counsel for the 3rd accused-contemnor sought two
weeks' time finally and as a last chance two weeks' time
was granted.
22. This Court on 25.08.2022, observed that in
spite of several orders passed by this court and having
afforded several opportunities to the 3rd accused-
contemnor to comply with the orders passed by the
learned single Judge in lieu of an undertaking submitted
by the 3rd accused-contemnor and the submission made
before this Court that the order of the learned single
Judge would be complied and having not complied with
the same, the Court has framed charge on 25.08.2022.
23. The order sheet reveals that even before and
after the order of revival on several occasions, sufficient
opportunity was accorded to the 3rd accused-contemnor
to comply with the order passed by the learned single
Judge and also the undertaking submitted before this
- 40 -
court. The 3rd accused-contemnor has not only violated
the order of the learned single Judge, but also violated
the undertaking submitted before this Court. It is also
relevant to state the presence of the 3rd accused-
contemnor was secured on three occasions through
jurisdictional police as the 3rd accused-contemnor was
avoiding his presence before this Court for one or the
other reason. This Court framed the charges on
25.08.2022, which reads as under:
"That you accused No.3 has willfully
disobeyed the order dated 20.02.2020 passed
by the learned Single judge of this Court in
W.P. No.10950/2016 and also two
undertakings dated 04.04.2019 and
11.04.2019 given to this Court to complete the
entire civil works/ constructions/developmental
works of the layout namely Royal Enclave.
Thereby you have willfully and
deliberately not complied with the directions
issued by the learned Single Judge of this
Court in the order dated 20.02.2020 passed by
the learned Single judge of this Court in W.P.
- 41 -
No.10950/2016 and also two undertakings
dated 04.04.2019 and 11.04.2019 given by
you. This act of you amounts to civil contempt
within the meaning of the provisions of Section
2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
punishable under Section 12 of the said Act,
within the cognizance of this Court."
And plea was recorded as under:
"Question : Have you heard the charge now
read over and explained to you?
Answer : Yes.
Question : Do you plead guilty or have you
any defence to make?
Answer : I do not plead guilty and I have
defence to make.
24. The complainant examined himself as CW. 1
and categorically stated about the willful and deliberate
disobedience of two undertakings dated 04.04.2019 and
11.04.2019 and submitted in Writ Petition
No.10950/2016 and on the basis of the undertaking
submitted by the 3rd accused-contemnor, learned single
Judge has disposed of the matter on 20.02.2020. The
- 42 -
complainant stated that this Court by order dated
12.01.2022 had also disposed of the contempt petition
on an undertaking submitted by the 3rd accused-
contemnor that he would comply and complete the work
within a period of one month. The cross-examination by
the learned counsel for the accused is to the effect that
the 3rd accused-contemnor has no other source of
income and as such, the project could not be completed.
However, the complainant has specifically stated that
the purchasers had paid a sum of Rs.45.00 crore to the
3rd accused-contemnor for allotment of site and
development works of the layout and the complainant
has also stated about the settlement tried between the
parties and the accused has miserably failed in coming
to any settlement.
25. On the other hand, the 3rd accused-
contemnor examined himself as DW.1 and admitted
about the undertakings and the order passed by the
learned single Judge. The case stated by the 3rd
- 43 -
accused-contemnor was that he was in financial
difficulties and as such, he had entered into an
agreement with the developers for the development of
works of the layout but however, the said contractors
could not continue due to their health issues. In the
examination- in-chief, DW.1-3rd accused-contemnor has
categorically stated that he would require more time for
identification and demarcation of the work and the
contractor has assured that he would complete the
construction works within three months and that he has
not willfully disobeyed the orders passed by this Court
and the evidence of DW.1-3rd accused-contemnor was
recorded on 18.10.2022. In the cross-examination of
DW.1-3rd accused-contemnor admitted that there are
200 cases filed against him by his customers before
various forums that is in respect of not forming the
layout and not providing of sites.
26. The provisions of Section 2(b) of the Civil
Contempt Act, reads as under:
- 44 -
"2. Definitions.-In this Act, unless the
context otherwise requires,-
(a) x x x
(b) "civil contempt" means wilful
disobedience to any judgment, decree,
direction, order, writ or other process of a
court or wilful breach of an undertaking given
to a court"
27. A careful reading of provisions of Section
2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act an act of "willful"
means which is done voluntarily and intentionally". The
second part "breach of an undertaking given to the
Court". In order to come in the second part, wherein a
willful breach of an undertaking given to the Court has
been violated, it is necessary to see whether the
undertaking given by the person is capable of execution
in normal courses and that it does not require any
extraordinary effort to comply with the undertaking
given to the Court would come under the purview of
Section2(b) of the Civil Contempt and undoubtedly, as
admitted by the 3rd accused-contemnor himself, the
- 45 -
accused has committed willful disobedience of the order
of the Court by committing the breach of undertaking
given before the learned single Judge on the basis of
which alone, the learned single Judge passed the order.
As could be seen from the material on record, the 3rd
accused-contemnor has not only willfully disobeyed the
undertaking given before the learned single Judge and
despite repeated adjournments granted by this Court to
comply with the order of the learned single Judge and to
comply with the order dated 12.1.2022 passed by this
Court, the 3rd accused-contemnor has failed to accord to
the terms of his undertaking and the order.
28. The statute confers a special power upon the
court to pass a sentence of imprisonment, and a fine for
the guilty of committing civil contempt and our view is
fortified by the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of Sukhdev Singh Sodhi vs. Hon'ble Justice
S. TejaSingh [AIR 1954 SC 186], has categorically
held at para Nos.20, 21 and 22 as under:
- 46 -
"20. The Pepsu High Court was
established in 1948 and Section 33 of the
Ordinance which established it recites that it
shall be a court of Record and that it shall have
power to punish for contempt. It will be
remembered that the Charter of 1774 which
established a Supreme Court for Bengal said
the same thing of that court and yet the Privy
Council did not trace its powers about
contempt from the Charter but from the
Common Law. In the same way, the law by
this time was so well settled in matters of
contempt that the words "court of record" and
"power to punish for contempt" had acquired a
special meaning. Consequently, it is immaterial
whether in 1948 the power of the Pepsu High
Court was derived from Section 33 or was
inherent in the nature of the court because
whichever it is the jurisdiction is a special one,
and had the legislature desired to take it away
and confer another kind of jurisdiction it would
have been necessary to use express words in
view of the case law which by then had
become well established.
In 1950 came the Constitution of India
and Article 215 states that-
- 47 -
"Every High court shall be a court of
record and shall have all the powers of such
a court including the power to punish for
contempt of itself."
Here again, whether this is a fresh conferral of
power or a continuation of existing powers
hardly matters because whichever way it is
viewed the jurisdiction is a special one and so
is outside the purview of the Criminal
Procedure Code. The Contempt of Courts Act,
1926 was repealed by Act 32 of 1952. Section
3 of the new Act is similar to Section 2 of the
old and, far from conferring a new jurisdiction,
assumes, as did the old Act, the existence of a
right to punish for contempt in every High
Court and further assumes the existence of a
special practice and procedure, for it says that
every High Court shall exercise the same
jurisdiction, powers and authority "in
accordance with the same procedure and
practice". These words are new and would be
inappropriate if the Criminal Procedure Code
applied. In any case, so far as contempt of a
High Court itself is concerned, as distinct from
one of a subordinate court, the Constitution
vests these rights in every High Court, so no
- 48 -
Act of a legislature could take away that
jurisdiction and confer it afresh by virtue of its
own authority. It is true Section 5 expands the
ambit of the authority beyond what was till
then considered to be possible but it does not
confer a new jurisdiction. It merely widens the
scope of an existing jurisdiction of a very
special kind.
21. On reflection it will be apparent
that the Code could not be called in aid in such
cases, for if the Code applies it must apply in
its entirety and in that event how could such
proceedings be instituted? The maximum
punishment is now limited to six months'
simple imprisonment or a fine of Rs.2000 or
both because of the 1952 Act. Therefore,
under the second schedule to the Code
contempt would be triable by a Magistrate and
not by a High Court and the procedure would
have to be a summons procedure. That would
take away the right of a High Court to deal
with the matter summarily and punish, a right
which was well established by the case law up
to 1945 and which no subsequent legislation
has attempted to remove. So also Section 556
could not apply, nor would the rule which
- 49 -
prohibits a Judge from importing his own
knowledge of the facts into the case. We hold
therefore that the Code of Criminal Procedure
does not apply in matters of contempt triable
by the High Court. The High Court can deal
with it summarily and adopt its own procedure.
All that is necessary is that the procedure is
fair and that the contemnor is made aware of
the charge against him and given a fair and
reasonable opportunity to defend himself. This
rule was laid down by the Privy Council in In re
Pollard and was followed in India and in Burma
in In re Vallabhdasi and Ebrahim Mamoojee
Parekh v. King Emperor. In our view that is
stiff the law.
22. If the Code of Criminal Procedure
does not apply, then there is no other power
which we can exercise. The Constitution gives
every High Court the right and the power to
punish a contempt of itself. If we were to order
a transfer to another court in this case we
would be depriving the Pepsu High Court of the
right which is so vested in it. We have no more
power to do that than has a legislature. As for
transfer from one Judge to another, there
again there is no original jurisdiction which we
- 50 -
can exercise. It is not a fundamental right and
so Article 32 has no application and there is no
other law to which recourse can be had. This
petition is therefore incompetent and must be
dismissed."
(Emphasis Supplied)
29. Contemplating that the High Court can deal
with the contempt as a summary proceeding and adopt
its own procedure as the jurisdiction is a special one and
the existence of right to punish for contempt in every
Court and further assumes the existence of special
practice and procedure only fact to be taken into
consideration is that the procedure is to be fair and the
contemnor is to be made aware of the charge against
him and given a fair and reasonable opportunity to
defend himself. The 3rd accused-contemnor was
accorded sufficient opportunity from time to time, the
3rd accused-contemnor has willfully disobeyed the order
of the Court.
- 51 -
30. The 3rd accused-contemnor is not entitled for
any lenience in punishment as held by the Apex Court in
the case of Bank of Baroda vs. Sadruddin Hasan
Daya and another [(2004) 1 SCC 360] at para
Nos.16 and 17 has held as under:
"16. Coming to the question of
sentence, we are conscious of the fact that the
power to punish for contempt must always be
exercised consciously, wisely and with
circumspection. At the same time, the court
should act with seriousness and severity where
justice is jeopardized by a grossly
contemptuous act of a party. If the judiciary is
to perform its duties and functions effectively
and true to the spirit with which they are
sacredly entrusted, the dignity and authority of
the courts have to be respected and protected
at all costs. Otherwise, the very cornerstone of
our constitutional scheme will give way and
with it will disappear the rule of law and the
civilized life in the society (see Vinay Chandra
Mishra, In re). The present petition was heard
on 27-8-2003 when we enquired whether the
respondents would be willing to deposit the
amount. Learned counsel for the respondents
- 52 -
sought time and the case was adjourned to 23-
9-2003 and then to 14-10-2003 and finally to
28-10-2003. However, even on the said date,
learned counsel for the respondents reiterated
the problems of the respondents in depositing
the amount and so the matter was heard on
merits. The position remains that though under
the consent decree passed by this Court on 28-
7-1999, the respondents had to deposit the
first instalment on or before 1-11-1999 and
the last instalment by 1-8-2001, but they have
not deposited or paid even a single penny. In
these circumstances, we are of the opinion that
there is no occasion for showing any leniency
in the matter of punishment.
17. We, accordingly, hold that the
respondents have committed contempt of court
for which they are sentenced to undergo four
months' imprisonment. It is, however, directed
that after they have undergone 15 days'
imprisonment, they shall be released on short-
term bail for a period of three months on their
furnishing bail bonds etc. to the satisfaction of
the Registrar, Bombay High Court. If during
this period of three months, they deposit the
entire amount in terms of the consent decree
- 53 -
dated 28-7-1999, the sentence of four months'
imprisonment imposed upon them shall be
reduced to the period already undergone,
failing which they will undergo the balance
period of imprisonment."
(Emphasis Supplied)
31. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rama
Narang vs. Ramesh Narang and another [(2006)
11 SCC 114] while considering the provisions of Section
2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act has categorically
held at para Nos.14 to 18 which read as under:
"14. A different view was taken by the
Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in
Bajranglal Gangadhar Khemka v. Kapurchand
Lid. In that case, a suit for specific
performance by execution of a lease was
compromised and consent terms were filed in
the Court and an order was passed thereon.
One of the terms in the compromise recorded
an undertaking by the defendant to have a
third party joined as a confirming party to the
lease which the defendant had agreed to
execute in favour of the plaintiff. The
defendant failed to execute the lease. The
- 54 -
plaintiff took out proceedings for execution and
the lease was executed by an officer of the
Court. The defendant then refused to get the
third party to confirm the lease in terms of his
undertaking. The plaintiff took out an
application for contempt of court. The Single
Judge allowed the application holding that the
defendant was guilty of wilful default and
asked the defendant to carry out the
undertaking within one month failing which a
warrant of arrest would issue. In the appeal
preferred by the defendant, it was contended
by him that no undertaking was given by the
defendant to the Court. Reliance was placed on
the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Nisha
Kanto cases. The Division Bench rejected the
submission and dismissed the appeal saying:
(AIR p. 337, para 4)-
"4. We are not prepared to accept a
position which seems to us contrary to the
long practice that has been established in
this Court,..."
The Court opined that: (AIR p. 338, para 7)
"The expression 'undertake' has come
to acquire through long practice, a technical
- 55 -
meaning. In all orders and decrees of the
Court, whenever the expression 'a party
undertakes' has been used, it has always
borne the meaning that the undertaking has
been to the Court. ... What is more, it has
been held by Bhagwati, J.-an opinion with
which I entirely agree-that it has been the
long-standing practice on the original side
that, whenever counsel wishes to give an
undertaking to the Court, he never
expressly uses the words 'to the Court' but
merely states that he undertakes on behalf
of his client, ..."
Accordingly it was concluded: (AIR pp. 338-39,
paras 7 & 8)
"We can only construe the
undertaking given by the defendants as an
undertaking given to the Court and not
given to the other side.
... The very fact that the Court passed
a decree after an undertaking was
embodied in the consent terms clearly
shows that the Court did sanction a
particular course; and that course was the
putting of its imprimatur upon the consent
- 56 -
terms. The Court was led to pass an order
upon the defendants to execute a lease in
view of the fact that an undertaking was
given by the defendants to get the Paradise
Cinema, Limited, to join the lease."
15. The view expressed by the Bombay
High Court has, in our opinion, been approved
by this Court in Bank of Baroda v. Sadruddin
Hasan Daya. The Calcutta High Court's
judgment to the contrary in Nisha Kanto Roy
Chowdhury does not therefore correctly reflect
the law.
16. In the face of such apparent
divergence, the Sanyal Committee was set up
and asked to examine the law of contempt with
a view to its clarification and reforming it
wherever necessary. The present statute is the
outcome of those suggestions.
17. The Sanyal Committee Report
which preceded the framing the enactment of
the Act, had opined:
"The 1952 Act is sound as far as it
goes. While its provisions may be retained,
its scope requires to be widened
considerably."
- 57 -
18. The Act has been duly widened. It
provides inter alia for definitions of the terms
and lays down firmer bases for exercise of the
court's jurisdiction in contempt. Section 2(b) of
the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 defines civil
contempt as meaning "wilful disobedience to
any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or
other process of a court or wilful breach of an
undertaking given to a court". (emphasis
supplied) Analysed, the definition provides for
two categories of cases, namely, (1) wilful
disobedience to a process of court, and (2)
wilful breach of an undertaking given to a
court. As far as the first category is concerned,
the word "any" further indicates the wide
nature of the power. No distinction is
statutorily drawn between an order passed
after an adjudication and an order passed by
consent. This first category is separate from
the second and cannot be treated as forming
part of or taking colour from the second
category. The legislative intention clearly was
to distinguish between the two and create
distinct classes of contumacious behaviour.
Interestingly, the courts in England have held
that the breach of a consent decree of specific
- 58 -
performance by refusal to execute the
agreement is punishable by way of proceedings
in contempt (see C.H. Giles and Co. Ltd. v.
Morris)."
(Emphasis Supplied)
32. The law is well settled that if any party gives
an undertaking to the Court under the orders of the
Court, there is a clear and deliberate breach thereof and
it amounts to a civil contempt and the party to a
litigation may be held liable for such a contempt.
Though the learned counsel for accused No.3 tried to
contend that there is no willful, deliberate disobedience
on the part of the 3rd accused-contemnor, the material
on record clearly depicts that the undertaking has been
breached, which became part of the decree of the Court
and amounts to contempt of the Court.
33. For the reasons stated supra, the point
framed for consideration is answered in the affirmative
holding that the complainant has made out a case to
punish the accused for the Contempt of Court under
- 59 -
Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with
Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act.
Accordingly, we pass the following:
34. In view of the above, we pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The civil contempt petition is hereby allowed.
(ii) The 3rd accused-contemnor is hereby convicted for
the contempt of Court, punishable under the
provisions of Section 12(1) of the Contempt of
Courts Act and sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of four months with
a fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) or
to complete the construction works as admitted by
him in the cross-examination within a period of
three months from today, whichever is earlier, in
default to undergo simple imprisonment for a
further period of one month.
(iii) The Registrar (Judicial) of this Court is directed to
prepare a warrant of commitment and detention in
- 60 -
respect of 3rd accused-contemnor in Form No.3 as
contemplated under Rule 16(1) of the High Court
of Karnataka (Contempt of Court Proceedings)
Rules, 1981 and take further action against the
accused to undergo punishment imposed.
(iv) The assistance rendered by the learned High Court
Government Pleader, Sri Kiran Kumar, learned
counsel for the complainants to arrive at this
conclusion is appreciated and placed on record and
the Karnataka State Legal Service Authority is
directed to pay honorarium of Rs.10,000/- to Sri
Kiran Kumar, learned High Court Government
Pleader forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
S*
