Karnataka High Court
Smt. Ningamma vs Sri. K Hemaraj on 14 February, 2011
Bench: N.Kumar, Ravi Malimath
IR THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKQ AT BANGALCRE
DATED THEE THE 14"' DAY OF FEBRUARy.'.2_:iViV: j'2,."2V
PRESENT
THE MONBLE MR. 3us*ri'C&«ae:K.ur«;;§§é'{1'._
AND
THE H{}N'BLE MR.JU€~:§IcE RA'v1_ M,Af_IvM}ixfF'H
CCCNO.;l484 *J*F:..2'Oi'f3.(CI\/IL}-.,.
BETWEEN:
Smt.Ningamr%1a;»'A_V ._
W/0 S»§'c;itf3.ppa Afaitzhéger,
AgediMajor,'"?i_--v . ~
C/o Srii Anant" .
Advocatsg, Np-.._8', -%.2**d i3.E__c)"C<',<",,
3"" floor, LS_upvs'~=:r M_aArf.-:éi:.,..._.~"'
HU!f;ii*--_ 580 3.20;' '" V' ...CQMPLAINANT
A(S3: S§§. '3.\;'A~..S;hastVf'i""SE Sri Ravindranath, Advocates)
5% :<.:'={».én=;a"ra;
Aged _M;:zjor,
AAF~?§Lanag'irag Directer,
V.Na'fl:h~West Karnataka Road,
"§"':*a"é";smrt Cergiaratiers,
Efientrai Qffice, Gekué Road,
Hubii, Dharwafi District' MAQCUSEEE
>!<>é<>Z<
This CCC flied under section 11 8: 12 Q? thevtfiije-hptempt
of Court Act by the Comefainaht, wherein h.s'3__;3re';<mgA«}:e
take cognizance for the feiiure of hart of the_.:%::ct:'sVe,::§--..ifrm_ot
obeying the order passed by the Horflgie 'mm
W.P.NCL23242/2034 éated 30.(}8,2C*C?7 a.E':"€f"c'§§.SO fO.r"hVa\£.En"g.
made a faése statement before t."hat"the ieiorfibiwe ti-_:ig:;h~C0ert T
to the effect that the amounts'»._whit:h.the c::ompi'aji'e:§af*::%:_eis
entitied to has been depesited 'b_efQ_re the_'v_tAiAabo'~urgcourtg
Ham and punish the at:<:usied~...__
This CCC coming on fo_riCrsf:ders this I\h§<UiV3AR 3.,
made the foIiowEhg::~"~.__ *
The g.ré'exf3'nce§;A_ef{th.e {:;:§re'.p;EaVi"nent is that the order
dateiti 3d.t'0a.e--v2Q_{}7% in W.P.N0.232-42/2004 is not
0beyefi,tte A1 H
2. 1's::V_V"tVhev'entire order, we do not see any
«.eVi"r'eCt'§tene'issued to the respondent by this Court.
teamed Counsel for the compiainant e{}'bs"r;'~i't§3"t't3at en 3 submissien made on behalf of the V * .;'e4$ee?fide;':t that the award ameunt is deeeeéted befere the "'V.V ib;a55b10ur Cezrzmissieher, the writ eetitien came ta be " eéeeeeed eff qeeehéng the ehew eeeee netéee %$$£1€'§. New it transpires that as amauni; is ciepasiteé ar'r<:i.. the contempt petition. A5 there i'sMn>Q dEifi;43~'t:'t'i't.;s%§'_':Vi$§'ued.V by ' this Court, the questjiori :3? diSobét;iier;i'c~:~:~:'e::i"=a' passed by this Caurt would ~;"§o't.._arisé'-fair c9n'?;git:K:~§_rvati,;3ri. If r L' the order is obtained on rr:isr£§§;ti::re:~::§:r1.t%aati0.i1,'~:n§Vi_$--j§t§atertzent of facts,, the petitioner A:::é:V:r't_a'ii';ijiLy in iaw and a contempt is notthe }aia;r'._j the petition is rejected re$.e3.rV\ri'r%gi:. _:.4ttiié"V.'itiétitiorier to initiate appropriate' a,{:ti?.3 2:1,' if "hié3'--sfci"Vt:ii:r)t5§",es:i ' ..é7'rAS*t''