Karnataka High Court
R Rangaswamy vs Mr Sippegowda on 14 November, 2024
Author: K.Somashekar
Bench: K.Somashekar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:46375-DB
CCC No. 1832 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 1832 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
1. R. RANGASWAMY
COURT OFFICER
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
S/O LATE RANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.75,
1ST CROSS,
KONANAKUNTE CROSS
BENGALURU-560 062
2. HARISH KUMAR
Digitally signed by
MAYAGAIAH SECTION OFFICER
VINUTHA
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Location: HIGH
COURT OF S/O LATE NARASHIMA MURTHY
KARNATAKA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.6, 1ST CROSS,
DEVAKI KUMARA GARDEN
VIJAYANAGAR
BENGALURU-560 040
...COMPLAINANTS
(BY SRI. T.N VISHWANATHA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MR SIPPEGOWDA
AGED MAJOR
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:46375-DB
CCC No. 1832 of 2019
S/O CHIKKAJAVAREGOWDA
THE PRESIDENT
KARNATAKA STATE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
EMPLOYEES HOUSE BUILDING CO OPERATIVE
SOCIETY LTD
NO.7/2, SURIYA CHAMBERS
2ND FLOOR 1ST MAIN, SESHADRIPURAM
BANGALORE-560 020
2. MR. K.A SUDHAKAR
AGED MAJOR
S/O NOT KNOWN
THE SECRETARY
KARNATAKA STATE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
EMPLOYEES HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE
SOCIETY LTD
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BANGALORE-560 001
3. MR. K.C. ANNEGOWDA
AGED MAJOR
THE PRESIDENT
KARNATAKA STATE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
EMPLOYEES HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE
SOCIETY LTD
NO.7/2, SURIYA CHAMBERS
2ND FLOOR 1ST MAIN, SESHADRIPURAM
BANGALORE-560 020.
...ACCUSED
(BY SMT. G.K.BHAVANA, ADVOCATE FOR R2
AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT AS PER ORDER
DATED 22/02/2024)
THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11 AND 12 OF THE
CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, PRAYING TO TAKE COGNIZANCE
OF WILLFUL VIOLATION OF THE UNDERTAKING GIVEN TO THIS
HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.NO.14999/2006 AND CONNECTED
MATTERS RECORDED VIDE ORDER DATED 03.07.2009 BY THE
ACCUSED, PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A .
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:46375-DB
CCC No. 1832 of 2019
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR)
This contempt proceeding is initiated under Sections 11
and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 r/w Article 215 of
the Constitution of India for wilful disobedience of the order
passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.14999/2006 and
connected matters dated 03.07.2009.
2. Learned counsel for the complainants, namely
Sri T.N.Vishwanatha, is on record but there is no representation
either through video conferencing or present before the Court
physically.
3. Learned counsel for respondent No.2, namely,
Smt. G.K. Bhavana, is present before the Court physically and
submits that the present contempt proceeding is not
maintainable as there is delay in initiation of the contempt
proceeding.
4. Keeping in view the submission made by learned
counsel for accused No.2, it is relevant to refer Section 20 of
NC: 2024:KHC:46375-DB
the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as
the 'Act' for short), which reads as under:
20. Limitation for actions for contempt.-- No court
shall initiate any proceedings of contempt, either on its own motion or
otherwise, after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on
which the contempt is alleged to have been committed.
5. Keeping in view the provision of Section 20 of the
Act, it is deemed appropriate to refer the judgment rendered by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.Tirupati Rao vs. Lingamaiah
and others reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1764 in
paragraphs 52 and 53 observed as under:
52. Therefore, it would be correct to state that the court's
power when dealing with the question of contempt, in a sense, is
discretionary. It cannot be gainsaid that even in cases where
disobedience of the order of the court is not disputed, the court may
also accept a defence, if raised, of impossibility to comply with an
order and come to the conclusion that since it is impossible to
enforce its order, action to punish may not be initiated. That apart,
refusal may be justified by grave concerns of public policy. Much
would depend on the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature
of the contempt under enquiry, etc., which would enable the court to
exercise its discretion either way. However, to demonstrate his bona
fide, the contemnor ought to bring any valid defence for his
disability to comply with the court's direction to its notice without
wasting any time. Whatever be the position before it, nothing stands
in the way of the high court from passing an order to ensure that
nothing impedes the course of justice.
53. Reverting to the point of limitation, even in case of a petition
disclosing facts constituting contempt, which is civil in nature, the
petitioner cannot choose a time convenient to him to approach the
Court. The statute refers to a specific time limit of one year from the
date of alleged contempt for proceedings to be initiated; meaning
thereby, as laid down in Pallav Sheth (supra), that the action should
be brought within a year, and not beyond, irrespective of when the
NC: 2024:KHC:46375-DB
proceedings to punish for contempt are actually initiated by the high
court.
6. Therefore, keeping in view Section 20 of the Act
and so also, the reliance of the Hon'ble Supreme Court stated
supra and the submission made by learned counsel for
respondent/accused No.2, are concerned, it is deemed
appropriate to state that there is no substance to consider this
contempt petition as it is punitive in nature. Consequently, this
contempt proceeding is hereby dropped.
Sd/-
(K.SOMASHEKAR)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
KTY
