[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
M/S. Manleo Foods Pvt Ltd vs Sri. Prashanth Pandey on 10 April, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:20076-DB
CCC No. 559 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 559 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
1. M/S. MANLEO FOODS PVT. LTD.
REP. BY MR. G. SHUBHA KUMAR
C/O GAANESHWARA M.S.
AGED AROUND 35 YEARS
NO.462, 11TH CROSS
7TH A MAIN ROAD, SECTOR A
YELAHANKA NEW TOWN
YELAHANAKA
BANGALORE - 560 064
...COMPLAINANT
(BY SRI V. MOHAN, ADVOCATE)
Digitally
signed by AND:
AMBIKA H B
Location: 1. SRI. PRASHANTH PANDEY
High Court AUTHORIZED OFFICER
of Karnataka CHIEF MANAGER
CANARA BANK, ARM BRANCH-I
2ND FLOOR, SPENCER TOWER
M.G. ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 001
...ACCUSED
(BY SRI SHETTY VIGNESH SHIVARAM, ADVOCATE)
THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE
CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, PRAYING TO PUNISH THE
ACCUSED BANK/CONTEMNOR FOR CIVIL CONTEMPT FOR
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:20076-DB
CCC No. 559 of 2025
HC-KAR
WILLFULLY DISOBEYING THE ORDER DATED 13.01.2025 PASSED
IN W.P. NO.34429/2024 (GM-RES) BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU IN ANNEXURE-A & ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint alleging
willful disobedience of the order 13.01.2025 passed by the learned
Single Judge in Writ Petition No.34429/2024 (GM-RES). The
operative part of the said order reads as under:
"3. Having regard to the interim orders passed on
19.1.2024 and in view of the prayer made in the writ
petition regarding the Auction Sale Notice dated
26.11.2024 and the fact that the auction could not be
held by the respondent-Bank, the writ petition stands
disposed of directing the 1st respondent-Bank to
consider the request made by the petitioners for refund
of the amount deposited by the petitioners under OTS
Scheme.
4. If the said amount is kept under No-lien Account
and the petitioners have not fulfilled the conditions the
1st respondent-Bank will be duty bound to consider the
representation given by the petitioners which includes
the 2nd petitioner, who is the original borrower for
refund of the amount deposited under OTS scheme.
The same shall be considered as expeditiously as
possible and at any rate within a period of two weeks
from the date of receipt of copy of this order."
NC: 2026:KHC:20076-DB
HC-KAR
2. The Bank has rejected the request for refund of the amount
deposited in the non-lien account by letter dated 06.02.2025, a
copy of which has been produced and marked as Annexure-R1 to
the statement of objections filed by the accused Bank.
3. Since the order, the disobedience of which is alleged is
confined to directing the Bank to consider the representation, which
has been done, no proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act,
1971 is required to be initiated against the accused.
4. The complaint is, accordingly, closed.
5. We, however, clarify that this order would not preclude the
complainant from agitating its grievance against the accused Bank
in accordance with law.
Sd/-
(VIBHU BAKHRU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(C.M. POONACHA)
JUDGE
AHB, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5
