Karnataka High Court
M/S Global Garments vs Alagiri Poly Packs (P) Ltd on 10 April, 2012
Bench: D.V.Shylendra Kumar, K.Govindarajulu
-6_
2. Heard Dr. V. C. Jagannath, learnedu:'icoufjscl it appearing for the complainant.
appellant before this Court in No;----l.:é'l6O/2(p.)'»l..O'A. being aggrieved by the judgment an'd:decreve l0 suffered by it in O.S.No.67':1~f7.p/200.7"biepfoprdtheCXXV'"V4Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge; _g};it'w__was one for eviction, which res:ulted_~_in against the appellant -- gmthe pendency of the appeal entered into some amicable memorandum of settlement before the court 23 Rule 3 of CPC for disposing the ap..pdealpin__ of the compromise entered int? betyve.enlA't.he .p"art,ie_s.. Accordingly, the appeal was dispose'd. of aside the judgment and decree of the court" infisubstitution, was made the terms of V';rVs'ett1eme1'1t, as decree passed by this Court. The"~«present contempt petition is on the premise that V" 'V.'j~»th'e:*ac'cused person and also another company, which was _ 7 -
the plaintiff in the suit has not fulfilled the ter. settlement and that they have acted in a T' manner in denying the benefits of against the complainant while the .a_ccuse.d:'Compar1;;z has l' the other hand, en~cashed the benefits "o'1"'p_t_he of compromise. It is therefore amounts to contumacious conduct toE"l3.€b guitably in contempt jurisdiction; V'
4. We find that 'ithe ter1ris"'~.:."of:'tl'1'e lcornpromise is quite elaborate and {Ve5jb_.are:"i.'ofjlthe Vl€\li7, that it will be a cumbersomexexercise a~t_e'dious one to act as executing court, while exercising c_on.tempt jurisdiction. 5", :'It,is on'ly f_oi=._._this reason, we are not entertaining the reserve liberty to the complainant to out ..;"ts~.A:"rights and remedies by putting the ""c"oInpromise"decree to execution and seek for suitable relief Executing Court. Subject to reserving such this contempt petition is dismissed. &/