Karnataka High Court
Mr. Gaurav K Bhandari vs Mr. Bharath Chandrashekar on 18 March, 2025
Author: K.Somashekar
Bench: K.Somashekar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:11040-DB
CCC No. 726 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.726 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
1. MR. GAURAV K. BHANDARI
S/O. OF MR. U. C. BHANDARI
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.266, 15TH MAIN ROAD
5TH CROSS, R.M.V. EXTENSION
BENGALURU - 560 080.
2. MR. BHARAT K. BHANDARI
S/O. MR. U. C. BHANDARI
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.266, 15TH MAIN ROAD
5TH CROSS, R.M.V. EXTENSION
BENGALURU - 560 080.
Digitally signed by
MOUNESHWARAPPA 3. MRS. ASHU BHANDARI
NAGARATHNA
Location: High Court W/O. MR. U. C. BHANDARI
of Karnataka
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.266, 15TH MAIN ROAD
5TH CROSS, R.M.V. EXTENSION
BENGALURU - 560 080
REP. BY GPA HOLDER
MR. BHARAT K. BHANDARI
...COMPLAINANTS
(BY SRI ADITHYA CHATERJEE, ADVOCATE FOR,
SRI SANJAN M., ADVOCATE AND SMT. ROSE JOY,
ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:11040-DB
CCC No. 726 of 2021
AND:
1. MR. BHARATH CHANDRASHEKAR
S/O. LATE MR. G. CHANDRASHEKAR
RESIDING AT NO.538
31ST MAIN, 1ST CROSS
BANAGIRINAGAR, BANASHANKARI III STAGE
BENGALURU - 560 080.
2. MS. BINDUSHREE C.
D/O. LATE MR. G. CHANDRASHEKAR
RESIDING AT NO.538
31ST MAIN, 1ST CROSS
BANAGIRINAGAR, BANASHANKARI III STAGE
BENGALURU - 560 080.
3. MRS. DEEPA C.
W/O. LATE MR. G. CHANDRASHEKAR
RESIDING AT NO.538
31ST MAIN, 1ST CROSS
BANAGIRINAGAR, BANASHANKARI III STAGE
BENGALURU - 560 080.
...ACCUSED
(BY SRI RAJESHWARA P. N., ADVOCATE FOR A-1 TO A-3)
THIS CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS
11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, AND THE
CONTEMPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS RULES 1987 READ WITH
ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, BY THE
COMPLAINANT, WHEREIN HE PRAYS TO INITIATE APPROPRIATE
CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED FOR DELIBERATE
DISOBEDIENCE OF THE ORDER DATED 19.01.2021 PASSED BY THIS
HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.NO.995/2021 (ANNEXURE-D) WHICH HAS
BEEN EXTENDED AND AS IN FORCE TILL DATE.
THIS CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR
'HEARING ON CHARGE', THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:11040-DB
CCC No. 726 of 2021
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR)
This contempt proceeding has been initiated by
complainants against respondents/accused relating to
disobedience of the order dated 19.01.2021 passed by the
learned Single Judge in WP No.995/2021.
2. Heard Sri. Adithya Chaterjee, representing Sri. Sanjan
M., and Smt. Rose Joy, learned counsel for complainants and
Sri. Rajeshwara P. N., learned counsel appearing for
respondents/accused Nos.1 to 3.
3. Learned counsel for respondents/accused Nos.1 to 3
has filed detailed affidavit on behalf of respondents/accused
Nos.1 to 3. The said affidavit is termed as an apologetic
affidavit.
4. It is deemed appropriate to refer to the apologetic
affidavit filed by learned counsel on behalf of
respondents/accused Nos.1 to 3 independently, which are reads
as under:
NC: 2025:KHC:11040-DB
Accused No.1-Sri. Bharath Chandrashekar S/o late
G. Chandrashekar has stated in his affidavit that this contempt
petition is filed alleging disobedience of the order dated
19.01.2021 passed in WP No.995/2021 by the learned Single
Judge of this Hon'ble Court, whereunder, accused No.1 along
with accused Nos.2 and 3 herein have sold the petition
schedule properties bearing Site Nos.262 and 263 to third
parties. He further stated that he has filed his detailed reply
statement on 15.02.2023 explaining the circumstances which
had compelled them to sell the above-mentioned two sites.
The properties were sold on account of the improper guidance
and under duress. There is no deliberate intention to flout the
orders passed by this Hon'ble Court. It is further contended
that accused No.1, who submitted unconditional, unqualified
and sincere apologies for the mistake that has happened, he
never had any intention to disobey the same but circumstances
beyond his control had led them to sell the properties.
Accused No.2-Smt. Bindushree C., D/o late
G. Chandrashekar has stated in her affidavit that accused No.2
along with accused Nos.1 and 3 herein have sold the petition
schedule properties bearing Site Nos.262 and 263 to third
NC: 2025:KHC:11040-DB
parties. She further stated that she has filed her detailed reply
statement on 15.02.2023 explaining the circumstances which
had compelled them to sell the above-mentioned two sites.
The properties were sold on account of the improper guidance
and under duress. There is no deliberate intention to flout the
orders passed by this Hon'ble Court. It is further contended
that accused No.2, who submitted unconditional, unqualified
and sincere apologies for the mistake that has happened, she
never had any intention to disobey the same but circumstances
beyond her control had led her to sell the properties.
Accused No.3-Smt. Deepa C., W/o late G. Chandrashekar
has stated in her affidavit that accused No.3 along with accused
Nos.1 and 2 herein have sold the petition schedule properties
bearing Site Nos.262 and 263 to third parties. She further
stated that she has filed her detailed reply statement on
15.02.2023 explaining the circumstances which had compelled
them to sell the above-mentioned two sites. The properties
were sold on account of the improper guidance and under
duress. There is no deliberate intention to flout the orders
passed by this Hon'ble Court. It is further contended that
accused No.3, who submitted unconditional, unqualified and
NC: 2025:KHC:11040-DB
sincere apologies for the mistake that has happened, she never
had any intention to disobey the same but circumstances
beyond her control had led her to sell the properties.
5. Learned counsel for respondents/accused Nos.1 to 3
emphatically submits that these apologetic affidavits are to be
taken on record and this contempt proceeding be closed.
6. The aforesaid apologetic affidavits have been
countered by learned counsel for complainants by filing a
counter affidavit dated 24.02.2025, which reads as under:
I, Gaurav Bhandari, son of U.C Bhandari, aged
about 44 years, residing at No.266, 15th main Road, 5th
cross, R.M.V Extension, Bangalore 560 080, the
Complainant No. 1 herein, do hereby solemnly state and
affirm on oath as follows:
1. I state that I am the Complainant No.1 in the instant
Complaint and that I am personally aware of the facts
and circumstances of the instant dispute. I am competent
to swear to the contents of the instant affidavit on behalf
of myself and the other Complainants herein.
2. The instant Contempt Petition has been filed for
contempt of the Interim order dated 19.01.2021 passed
by this Hon'ble Court in W.P. No. 995/2021 whereunder
the Accused were injuncted from alienating the Petition
Schedule Properties. The Accused in contempt of the said
Order had executed sale deeds dated 23.08.2021
alienating two of the Petition Schedule Properties bearing
Site Nos. 262 and 263 to third parties.
3. The Accused at the first instance showed no remorse
and simply filed objections in the present proceedings
claiming that they were under financial duress and were
NC: 2025:KHC:11040-DB
required to sell the properties to satisfy the default of a
loan availed from Tumkur Grain Merchants Co-Operative
Bank Ltd. The Accused did not take the prior leave of this
Hon'ble Court adjudicating WP 995 of 2021 before
alienating the said properties. Further, even after selling
the properties, the Accused have not attempted to purge
their contempt by depositing the sale proceeds with the
partnership firm and have also not tendered any apology
for 2 years despite admitting to the contempt committed.
4. Subsequently, the interim order dated 19.01.2021
passed in WP 995 of 2021 has been confirmed in the
judgment of this Hon'ble Court dated 20.12.2024. It was
only when the matter was set down for framing of
charges that the Accused have filed the present apology.
5. Admittedly, the Accused have been in contempt of the
Order dated 19.01.2021. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held
that an apology cannot be used as a weapon of defense
to purge the guilty of their offence. The Accused in order
to defend the present proceeding would necessarily need
to purge themselves of the contempt by obeying the
Order of the Court. In the present case, as they have
already alienated the properties in question, the Accused
must at the very least deposit the sale proceeds received
from sale of the properties into the partnership firm.
Admittedly, the Accused have secured for themselves a
sum of INR 1,24,20,000/- (Rupees One Crore Twenty
Four Lakhs Twenty Thousand only) from the
contemptuous sale of the properties in Site Nos. 262 and
263.
6. The Apology issued by the Accused/Respondents is
clearly not an act of contrition. Unless an apology is
offered at the earliest opportunity and in good grace, the
apology is shorn of penitence and hence it is liable to be
rejected. The Accused had not taken any steps to issue
an apology after the contemptuous acts were committed.
They had in fact moved the Hon'ble Court where W.P. No.
996/2021 was filed on 23.10.2024, two years after the
contempt proceedings were initiated to state that the said
writ petition was infructuous as the proceedings under
S.9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 i.e.,
Com. A.A. 10/2021 from where the writ petition arose
was disposed of on 25.03.2024 in an attempt to escape
contempt proceedings before this Hon'ble Court.
NC: 2025:KHC:11040-DB
7. When this Hon'ble Court held that the W.P.
No. 995/2021 will not be infructuous and proceeded to
pass a judgment in the same, and thereafter when the
present contempt proceedings was listed for framing of
charges the Respondent feared that they will be held in
contempt of this Hon'ble Court and issued the instant
unremorseful paper apology. An apology shorn of genuine
remorse is not an apology. No apology from the Accused
is worthy of consideration unless the fruits of the
contempt are deposited before this Hon'ble Court or into
the partnership firm to whom the properties sold rightly
belong.
WHEREFORE, it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court
may take this Affidavit on record and reject the apology
issued by the Accused in the interest of justice.
7. Learned counsel for complainants in support of his
contention, has placed the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of PRAVIN C. SHAH Vs. K. A. MOHD. ALI
AND ANOTHER reported in (2001)8 SCC 650. Paragraph
Nos.23 and 29 of the said judgment reads as under:
"23. Now we have to consider the crucial question -
how can a contemnor purge himself of the contempt?
According to the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar
Council of India, purging oneself of contempt can be done
by apologising to the court. The said opinion of the Bar
Council of India can be seen from the following portion of
the impugned order:
"Purging oneself of contempt can be only by
regretting or apologisng in the case of a completed action
of criminal contempt. If it is a case of civil contempt, by
subsequent compliance with the orders or directions the
contempt can be purged of. There is no procedural
provision in law to get purged of contempt by an order of
an appropriate court.
NC: 2025:KHC:11040-DB
29. This Court has held in M.Y.Shareef Vs. Hon'ble
Judges of the Nagpur High Court that
"an apology is not a weapon of defence to purge
the guilty of their offence; nor is it intended to operate as
a universal panacea, but it is intended to be evidence of
real contriteness".
8. In view of the above contentions, learned counsel for
complainants seeks not to accept the apologetic affidavits filed
by respondents/accused Nos.1 to 3, even though the
independent apologetic affidavits have been filed for seeking
acceptance of the same.
9. Learned counsel for respondents/accused Nos.1 to 3
submits that there was a partnership business between
complainants and respondents/accused and there are accounts
relating to the business between them and so also they have
obtained loan from the Banking institution. Subsequently, there
was an issue that occurred between them over the partnership
business.
10. In the given peculiar facts and circumstances, it is
deemed appropriate to refer to Section 12 of the Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971, which reads as under:
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11040-DB
Section 12. Punishment for contempt of court. -
(1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act or in
any other law, a contempt of court may be punished with
simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six
months, or with fine which may extend to two thousand
rupees, or with both:
Provided that the accused may be discharged or
the punishment awarded may be remitted on apology
being made to the satisfaction of the court.
Explanation :- An apology shall not be rejected
merely on the ground that it is qualified or conditional if
the accused makes it bona fide.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any
other law for the time being in force, no court shall
impose a sentence in excess of that specified in sub-
section (1) for any contempt either in respect of itself or
of a court subordinate to it.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in this
section, where a person is found guilty of a civil contempt,
the court, if it considers that a fine will not meet the ends
of justice and that a sentence of imprisonment is
necessary shall, instead of sentencing him to simple
imprisonment, direct that he be detained in a civil prison
for such period not exceeding six months as it may think
fit.
11. Keeping in view the aforesaid provision of law, it is
deemed appropriate to refer to Rule 20 of the Contempt of
Courts (C.A.T.) Rules, 1992, which reads as under:
"20. Apology at any stage of the proceedings :- (i)
If at any time during the pendency of the proceedings,
the contemner tenders an apology, the same shall be
placed expeditiously for order of the Bench.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11040-DB
(ii) If the Tribunal accepts the apology, further
proceedings shall be dropped."
12. Keeping in view the provision of Sections 11 and 12
of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and Rule 20 of the
Contempt of Courts (C.A.T.) Rules, 1992 and also the
arbitration proceeding in AC.No.641/2024, which is pending for
adjudicatory process between the parties to the aforesaid
proceeding, it is not a case to dwell in detail about the issues
between complainants and respondents/accused.
13. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and
circumstances, it is deemed appropriate that this contempt
proceeding is hereby dropped by granting the liberty as sought
for in accordance with law.
Sd/-
(K.SOMASHEKAR)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGE
PHM
