K Jagadish Ponraj vs A Muniraju on 4 December, 2008

[Cites 3, Cited by 2]

Karnataka High Court

K Jagadish Ponraj vs A Muniraju on 4 December, 2008

Equivalent citations: AIR 2009 KARNATAKA 56, 2009 CRI. L. J. (NOC) 558 (KAR.), 2009 A I H C 1272, 2009 (4) ALJ (NOC) 656 (KAR.), 2009 (3) AJHAR (NOC) 865 (KAR.), 2009 (1) AIR KANT HCR 560, (2009) 2 CIVILCOURTC 624, (2009) 2 KANT LJ 391, (2009) 2 ICC 613, (2009) 1 KCCR 521

Bench: S.R.Bannurmath, A.N.Venugopala Gowda

V;

IN THE HIGH couar or KARNATAKA AT BANGA{,C§§ E'. I"~V V"2 n

DATED THIS THE 4" DAY or DECEMBER, 2'9f03 ;f    

PRESENT "=

THE HOWBLE MR.Jus'm:E s.sz§L;3Aé*§':s£%uRM;*;?%:~';.A , " 

&    :   
THE HCWBLE MR. msﬁce A.:'é.,_\f£':b1UGO?ALi>yGOWDA
CQNTEMPT or-= coum %<#:g§_E%ir»:éL':1é;!2%oo7'(CzvzD

BETWEEN:

1 KJAGDISH POEERAE    
s/0 KANAGAR;i~3..V»i.'--   
AGED Asamt 48f '{E_ARSj    .
R/0 527;--=1, I MAIN 4T,H"C:;ROSS_.
£30wABA:as.AS.A:;§IADI _ -  '-
BANGALORE"j560'G;43. 

2 G"v--CH3\NDRAS.EiEKAR  " ,
5:0 {ATE G9.V£NDA ';=;Ec;3v
AGED' ABOUT 40 '2{E;egs,..*'
ago 228';'1_JAYANTHI NAGAR

__;:-ioa.AMAvu A _

- ':aA,a:GAa__.0RE 43; """ "

~ vERA§3CIS .VSE-LVARA}
 s;%a§r;p s5:;vARA3
A 'AGED' ABGUT 30 YEAS
 ESki'¥"ER*"ENTERPRISES
P1030 HBR LAYOUT,
 RIMS ROAD,KALYAN NAGAR ms?
" < musaaoae 550 043.

_. L" 

 COMPE_AI¥\£A§\£?S

  'T  § f -(8? SRE. M (3 KUMAR FDR M/s.Mx3.:<uMAa LAW FIRM, Aavsg



AND :

I A MUNIRAEU
S/0 LATE K AVALAPPA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
2 RATHNAMMA
W/0 A MUNIRAR3
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,

3 M PUSHPA
0/0 A MUNIRAJU  
AGED ABOUT 22 * 

ALL ARE R/AT DGDDAGLEBEIvi%Ls§é§aE :9xii:$ff  .

BZQARAHALLI HOBLI    .%
BANGALORE E;>:,=.T..1M;3K  _  
BANGALORE;    'V

4 RA:vtAK;a1aHNA9PA'%T.'.'j.  %
~'S;'C'VE§4KA'{;+%SWAMA?PA""'W "
 AGE9 'A§ivDU"i"«?5'«YEﬁ_S 1 ;
'<2,/04vEa:1KA3*Es%a_Are.:R;a_\z1LLAeE
JAKKEJR    
Ysirxam KA. H<:sBLz_ 
  , BANGALOREv"N{}'RTF¥ TALUK.
 ~   ACCUSEQ

1% =.( $v  em SAWKAR, ADV. FOR A1 $0 A3
 A _  T%s.a=2:V.* :a;~1_3;5GANATHA, ADV. FOR A4)

V "£"'Hf '5i__fV'...';:'(2{Z IS Flues UNDER semews 11 & :2 0? ms
CG-.NTEM'P'T«--"OF COURT ACT PRAYING T0 PRGSECUYE Am
PUNISH. RESPONDENT NOS; T0 4 FOR cemsysep? 0? CGURT

 AAAND z'-'*-£--_f3O DERECT RESPONDENT N€}S.},, 2 AND 3 T8 CANCEL

THE FALSE SIQLE DEE3 DATED 213.2306, ANNEXURE -- M

'  "CREATEE IN VIOLATION OF T§'£E INJUNCTIQN GRANTED BY "f!"¥E
' C{)URT OF THE 11 ADDLCIVIL JUSGE {SENIOR {}I\{ISION)
__ BANGALO RE RE} RAL DISTRECT" AT BAN GALE) RE IN

' G.S.E\i0.1S{}4/2006 SY ORDER SN I.A.b30.1 DATED 27'.6.2€)G6.





"WIS PETETION CQMIRG SN FUR ORSERS THEE} §AY,
VENUGOPALA GOWEJA J., MASE THE FOi.LOWING:--

ORDER

In this contempt petition fiied under.VS'é'ctjcr§_.'tﬁ) ttteeéuﬁt' wtth Section 3.2 of the Centempticftttcgrts » short, the Act), the comp!a.ir}antc'V..hé'w_e so§..s:g,t;t:'vt<'; '£:€.itievte~.., contempt proceeciings againétﬁﬁze accused,}s;nc§i_tt:W;§unEsh them for disobedience cf ancﬂrdeif.ct"tempcéfaryvvvinjunctien made by the subordinate-t.c'§>tirt': z the case necessary fer the dispose: cf, this VibetiEVté'_e'n~ as foltowsz uVT?'aeV cotr§p!a,E_r§_a,nts are the piaintéffs %r: the satt fer ' V:sp9,c§ﬁc'«;::e§fGr{r1ance in 0.5. f'~£o.1S04/96 on the ﬁte cf the H'It..'-Adcti;éV'é«'{:§v§§.judge (Sr. 9:2,}, Bangalore Rural District, Baurég,al"vqre,".VfiEed against defendants ;' accused 1 to 3 xt:'e?r,einv."' In the suit which is stat: pending, the Triai Court by Herder dated 27266.05, has ardered the issue of V' Wtemporary injunction restraining the defendants from aiienatmg the suit: 'C' scheduie preperty tiii the next date /..

Ln them ex-parte and to permit them to contest the suiiﬁ-.Ti"he said appiicetion having been aiiewed, the defen4ee'i"iA£e'__'iieeféz, filed their written statement on 20.01.67, ieiasfi stated that, they have aiready property in dispute in faveurjiof <}%'ié2._ P:.'eV_eiai<r.i";s*.'ifs;siA'a%pi;,3e';i;'e.,"F, accused ¥\io.4 herein. The ;§'}v_a:ivi'i*2i§f$V.CG£}Vt£Ei3i';3 iiiey made enquiries and ﬂeeing thetmtiﬁej§ie¥'e_:jeaii£e"'heiie made a fraudulent trenefer oi' under a sale deed iiiA':':§i.if;i_E_V:VVf{Violation of the injunction end are guiity ef conterept ef' iiieibie to be punished under Section 2 feed 3.0 ef the Act. Centendieg that the aeeesed are '"gL2.iVif¥;_y__ef vioiatirig the said iejenctioii order the accused are gtiiity of iriterferieg with eﬁ.ri'i.Enisfi'ei:E.e.nire?' jiistice and hampering the aetiierity of V «V the aie iiebie te be pimisiied as previded Lieder _ 'A 4,,,"/'V.«;i1e~}'%:;t, viziiie contempt petition has been fiied with e ereyei .'.j'.~te'--:ei2'iiish the accessed and te direct accused 3. te 3 te T ﬁeiicei the said saie deed dated 21.018? (Aneexure-iii), in U favour of accused Ne.4. ' \,/a 2.1 The accused 1 to 3 have ﬂied tI':e§;f~«~s?:.1«:-:;'V;V:'«;':'.+_5:_1*+§';¢;.§§"t.¢~A of objections, mm: aiéa contending that, t%:.;e; :;j:'e.tVit§:r§.§:;f: Es ézaii, maint:a§nab£e; the remeciy for t?3e;'<'V:§$ rr9'_e:;A9'Ea%s9iAa:':ts' 'i:.s;%'.%V:§é&§§;T§<té. the jurisdiction of the Tréai Cgurt unﬁ'e.r 0r§%§sL'.3§ "Rav:§je "2A'*» of Code and not the provisEcr:$:t:f thé A¢t','* §;.i1e.§§§§VVVof the dssczszon in the case BAKSH AND OTHERS, reporteé' They have stated that, tfjeyf aa;ere::' ﬁ£>;t'V1ésx-gyarte czrder ef temporary€.;«r:j"t:.:2VciA?.ﬁ£a;:j £i_y:§hVe_ 'Tria£ Court and there is no };§E¥"fx£1f" on ;)art and hence, they have ntﬁt comm-Ett ec§ja?:'y._§fb«;v%:empt cf aourt. T¥'2é'%w...Vf:§;_ a.':§ft:?z accused in his statement of of:33'é3c't%¢i'r:As; éxésgonterzded that, he has not commétteé any VVb§"'_vioi§t'§'}>n of the arder dated 2106.96 passad by V V . the""':'riaVE-- (.Zo':J'Vft and the proceedings imtiated agamst him is *7 ""-l}.aiEtjh.gutvVényjust cause 0!" reasan; iacks bcma fides; that he $é'»'.$é ﬁat a party to the prcceedings in the Triai Court; that 'T an order wag communicated to him; that he E5 3 bone ﬁée k A".

purchaser Er: possesséan ef the mad and hence the pet_§i:§ar% E3 net maintairzabée.

3. We have heard Sri. M.G. K.=.:%151e:VV:v§.{e:é'rns§¢"._ ' cotmsei fer the compiainarats, Sif¥.M,_fﬁ'f§ jj.S'aw:%§ar,"Eea:féé:e;§d counsel for accused 1 to ',3__ant?Sri'--,H.'i'._.~§agv'ar%né?:hé%, teamed counsel for the accused'L'LN£c;4,

4. Sri.M.G. Kuﬁ"aaf;- ¢'c;_n3'§€gén§éﬁ§_ regard being had to the p{<>v§sio__ns §:f"S'eﬁi;§z§_§i*««.§»Qx cf Act, this Court has the a;_1t*§'=;j~:xr:_i1t5,?: ..'i;._r.:'v£§§é--...\cc.qré:é;:a;fa¢éV of the ccmtampt compiz-::}1r}eci'c§v proceedings against tha accused, f'<>.__4pu,nE§i*a; 4fh_e*m:_'"\.'in accorﬁasce with Eaw and is secu:§§ju'$tice £6"tlrégggznpiainants. He csntended that, the §riocedu»§faA.%;'«4i;°echnica3 ebjézctions, shoziid be over~ru§ed to lénﬁihsre j u:§§'§'§.e'A'§5Ve'§ween the parties, since the Act has been V --V spe:':.4;"ai.bg"' iﬁééégned to puaish the viaiatars ef 'she Court 'A Vvﬁccording te the Eearned co:mse§, far the act of

--'cf::;1'fé%;npt committed by the accuseé, this Court sincuid T "Mow the ccmpéaénants ts prosecute the graceeéings, U under the pmvisiens cf the Act. He centended that, Order K/~ ,1 CC?

39 Ruie 2A of the Cede is net efficacious, because of deiay that may take ptace Er: th.§" nf;3:tté% conclusian ef the proceeding: in tj-'£*;'é""§"~ri;ta§ 7Co£_z4rt'é.sf2d1' vi--r§'.Va%; appeai thereafter, the accused Ni}; ﬁfe_..A%A9*%aEaté:E§~tﬁfi._ court vder, WEIE be enjoying 't§}*e..%fru§tVS»::;f' %sA§}af§_:at'E-§'éé';'"v}%3i<:t3 '' ' sheuid not be permittecﬁ-.._ 4.1 Sr'§.M.G. K§'m§r,%":~a§§}:[n§Ajﬁtp§¢the decision in the case 9? aguéét Vs. ssqppea cowsraucrrtim AND ANGTHER, repertgd'"in'V:2t§¥t;'::1§:1~98$.V §}Cé' '23{2SjV, contended that, the pe2tEtiof§._fdr"_ order is mamtainabée under then}:-r:é}v'vis§V§3r}sA':3f' tséé. Act. Facts in the aaid case are __res¥;#6r:c§.e.nt (Skimmer Censtruction Comparzy) pitji-ahAa's§d:v'éJ"p3ot of and in an auction heéd by the a'ptieiEaﬁt Qeveiepment Authority {DDA fer shert). Thettraépiotitient dié not deposit the bid amount and the V' E§VDA.,<:at:<:aiEec£ the aiiotment. The resgendent approached the High Ceurt which stayed the canceikatéon. On 29.01.91, Man interim order was granted by the é-feﬁbée Sagmme Court subjact to the respandent degesiting the sasms \ /'.

4.2 Sr%.M.G. Kumar, next pieced rel§ence_eejo.r§e~the decision in the case of ALL BENGAL exciseifL:¢E':%;~See.s*_ ASSOCIATION Vs. RAGHAVENDHRA_SIN$H"'*:S(f.C*{T§*§ER$',""

reported in AIR 2097 sc 1386 eerer., 'the':§a¢':<;;«r:qerz;§ facts of the case were; by oreerj. dated'V64.G3.G5jfv.e,§eereed..i* Single Judge of the High Courﬁ ';:z:a_seed an erder to the effect that, the resp£§'ndent rautherirty win he at iﬁberty to process the e;;pIEca.ti*er§sf'%ri'-reaped:véerverant of ﬁicerrces for excise.$.ﬁ-ep£§jVL'E:.et~.r§n_1ﬁna!.__.se5e'€:tV§er'{in respect ef seer:

shops._: shei'_i' ;*r:§§g§§_';;;ut eefeieéeg speciﬁc §eave er the Court. it céeer that, the resperzdeet -- autifzemy v§riii..:Vr;ethv'ho{e:i erzy iettery fer the purpose cf ﬁne: . seiserztitsen eﬁhe eieﬁse shops in questien without ebteéeérzg sa§d order was extended on 19.81.65, eei.:_iV'! f;4.a't?§ e';*'Aerders. Thereafter, or: 28.81.33, a direction for ﬁ!'ieVe:' the affidavit was made and the interim order was V."'--,.Vext:e-heed. Though said orders were commamicateé and $31 _,v_..spite of fair knevﬂedge, the responderats in deiiberate and wafer disregard of the orders, caused an advertisement te \ /_.

'E'?

be pubiishee in newspapers for faoéciéng iettery feéﬁfizxaé seiectéen of excise shops and a iottery was a_.is,:~e'_»E§e§'£§A~ fog' the eurpose of fine! seiecticm of the excise_;_h§-;i$.~ act was compiained as dei§bera%;"epAAbeed ..wi§fei' '(if the orders of the High Court arﬁ4{§..Aee.ntem.pteAA;§r'e>teee§'*ne's--..L were initiated, undef the pfe§fi*s»§ons eed was proceeded with.

4.3 Bath the sgzgf'dg¢éesk§:§ns,réi;£tecéee re the matters, wherein the2__'Ve%'§E;er$ ;5:e'S'sed...:by the High Courts and :.f;ot_ '_tAh'e~,LI.'v'..¢§§eeeeie'e';e_erwbreach of the temporary injunct iie;j"erder._.ee§ssea-ﬁy"e suberdinate Court and hence, haxfeano aubp.i§Acat.i"on V'te.."decide the maintainability ef the

- Agéitia'€i6=§; uﬁéer théeV"'§i¥'é'€>vEsions of the Act.

centre, the specific stand taken by tee !ee":e:}eVeac'<5eesei fer the accused is that, the jurisdiction of xtéii-$_Ce"urt under Section 13 ef the Act carmet be exercised, éeke cognizance ef the contempt commeéned of Le, far V c¥§sobed%ence cf an order of temporary injunction of tee suberciinate ceurt, Er; as much as the Cede étseﬁ has \.

/.7 necessary provision under Greer 39 Rate 2A te p:j:*zi--é§ff'e.:§::":e persons feund guilty in case ef breach of injunction. Learned counsei contenc§e.c!A En ' simiiar circumstances has heid teat, p?ev_§ s£.eﬁnsiV Act cannot be invoked in cee.e'"'~of bréeeh'Qf'-ar%'~._;Eé1:§t2:'a't:t%on'-V order passed by a suberdinate**CVi5er{';*~-.__

6. We have co_n:%i_'d.er;ee f_§t:I*3'e'~§4i'\%:é.j§..'{:<>rztentiens and perused "fhe 1'pc§'ht'j_tE§ ef*V"ar§ees for consideration is: . V . .

_o_rW?§o§atien of an oréer phased' by 'e';_ejs:i'i3:3 r:".*i;h.ate court under Rule 1 er mgeeeezor e;>;=de:,%_'L..'39 ef the Code, contempt "pet§tion"'A-..ueder: Section :10 of the Act is rnma;nabee?»+ ;

' «Aiffthe case of RUDRAIAH vs. srma 9?

Ks$;'eNATAK2i AND o'$I>-fees reeerted in 1981 (1) KLJ 33, 3 V 'Ac<;ez1_teré*§';:.:t petitien had been fﬂed is: this Ceurt, aiiegieg "'V--§Vji's<3'¥3edienc;,e at' an injuactien order passed by a Cévié ' V' '" Cour£, which had been confirmed by an Appeﬁate Ceert. Et was heid that, in cases of disebedéence er breech ef \ /g.' ;'_..i {u §n3'un<:tion order issued temporaréiy during the a suit either under Ruie 1 car 9.1159 2 of Order-. §9. z:Lié:i;L':':"';%s inexpedieni: to invoke and exercésé~ccnfern_pt [j::_ré$d'é%:t§6'n under the Act and %n such cases, ';a'sc_ti:.c:.rTa"f(s c<5%:.té:72p.§aVtét3-. Ey, the very Court which §ssuVeVe.=_=.:%:§\'Iii'1;e injungti-o§§'v_;di":§'éf" Lénder Rute 2A of Order 39 CBC, w!{3Vic%'::..ﬁferifefnplétes-Afe'r;fe§ture of property as aiso putti{ég' _4;h=.§' gemmits breach into cm! pr£s<2n_f€zri_a .§:><}:e.ed§n'g;*'Vihree menths, It was heid t§:atf'_; p_vrc'1s.'*.ij_-.v=.*.i'_§L'>':°:._théféaizrzdar is c-bvious£y baseazi on the_;3%r£:1§:iip%ié§ *:rf..;:o»r§.te§?m5t*-af..<;E>::rt and hence, the Act cannofr..§3e'--En%:'£§¥§£-25:3' f§§44rc:e:VV"t§1:e';3artV to obey the injzmctiezn order.

%%%[ %%":z;%1%% 'A127: césé'%'%5f SHAIK Mos~«:§9az:~¢ vs. SECEGN O'F§'_4TIVCE::?g',..,:é.Ei}1;'i?;§3iATAKA ELEEFRICITY 309.30, KAIWARA :'e'§r!}f9tedj,-§.?--1 é'_..-1i§94--) 4 KL} 147, agreeérag with the uitimate "'~V-«4_ -View tékén ﬁr: Rudraiaws case (supra) and aiso ncticing "-- ¥'..jr:e;»_ﬁccedasrai aspects provided for in Rum 13 91' High ' (Contempt ef Courts) F>receed§;1gs Ruée$, 1981, it was heié as foﬁows: X Z gm.) pg.

28. 'Fe conciucie, we are cieariy cf opinien that so far as the c0m;3iai_rgi:"**«'-3uf.,'__j:

disobedience of the orders at' the Ceurts"'E3:e§o§a,=. % and remedial measures sougiﬁtfoér bf; §n§5Gk:.';1g' Sectian 10 of the Act are cé1nce3'rn.é'd,"[T§:' 'i$3j"'I':G:Vi.' :*,,,.. necessary for this Ceurt £9 ta':-'ce_ "c:>gniza<%1cjfa _9Tf H the campiaints of this kivi'i5;,§i'3aV§E'?'1ijV{Z'hjélsaﬂiﬁéﬂ very Court itself jv9heseVAV.e--?d'ars"~~are 3§!eged5§$:o have been disébez§ed,'A._ sb=,§§.§§g.._'}ja§rn»petent to make use of the --"a \}af~§.gafVi3j!*e at its disp<asa%_.vuré:§fier Rgéia,» ijC'.P.C., can pass :{C:g!f§i;'&:':IfS'..gi5;If'?1g_»féiiefS ts the a§§f§é€:e§§.v_viné':§§'€c§$:rd.V§::ce §aw. It is any whgh' the havaﬁ hémseif of that remedy *e:f s)9.VrE':é:2.'._E";__.ht.'3f_i'e:Vc'<>rr:es imgossibée for him ~'c'{sv get ihe _r<e':5ne<':iy ét the hand"; af the Ciszzrt the'""drder aiieaed to have ggm he may think of agproachina this Section 1g_ of the Act and met A' (Emphasis sugpﬁed) Ir: the case of H. GOVINBARAJEE Vs. SHR1 %'%%VksH§a.NKARAL1n:eE eowm, commzssxomsa, SANGALORE " DEVELDPMENT AUTHQRITY ANS ANO'§'§~3ER reparted 2:: M. \ /.' 200'? KAR 3534, the facts were that, the compiaieeht es piaihtiﬁf had ﬂied a suit in the City Civii Court, wh«ei'e§'eg"t.he Triai Court passed an interim order directing_.tiievee'.:?tiee"'t:$ maintain the statee--que. Aiiegihg »t»h.at! a quo order passed, the respoedeitts ti_A_ehhoiis~h_e"d:"?th_e':V.iii'ejt3ee< of the plaintiffs, which is a 'zii.e:';::;j_a::tAofjtiiseeetlteheei of that order passed by the iriai Ce_£.:tt'5v..eez3tent;'.3t'gttetitgon under Section 10 read with .i§:t,_Vwas fiied in this Court. It was 4ijet_iced:At'h'a.t;;th_eA..§otheieiheht had eiso ﬂied an appiica:::.a}ttiiﬁeer ifi'vii.i:.z_iVem§A of Ce: te take actienﬂiagaineVt'i'ti:e._:i%es;5ehtien'i$. The decisieh in the case ef Sheik i\*ioi1i:_ddi§t also breught to the notice ef theeiﬁeurt ahd"'e;iifeeihv:g with the View taken therein, it was :C§r<1Aer 39 Ruie 2A CPC proviées an appropriate Aand_eie'et3"uete.i'}'e}nedy to the compiainaht. ?_."3; in the case of Hanamawwa (supra), it has A ":if"h.ee'ii~«_.he§d that, if there is any vieiation of the injehctieh er bireech ef the erder, we can appreaeh the eemeeteht ceert K /4 CT) under Order 39 Ruia 2A of CPC and the Court: is cofnpeéent to take the action.

7.4 In case cf KARNATAKA EANK LTD.

DATAR AND MHERS, repeated in (1993) 2 KL}~«~?_'3é'g}';__'__%;ﬁ«%::§V§AeA considering the questioa whether there wa$..,§%:.y .é committed by the appeitaat - bank b:$ §1:}iE£ETr2g?AAt?:1.:e'*.§a.§é£§;3§ on Oct. 29, 1982 in breach; 9? thk-: %§'rder ;§é?s$éz:E"

learned Mamsiff, it was heid a'§'f.¥§_'I'§'osef~rs: ~.

30. The ' 149;: _ "be_haif A auf the :*sfes;3cré déé::i=.-._:"pia'ir§§§ffs is-that the appe¥iant«~har:§< h as_ "disob.¢§ré':a.'¢t'h.é"'«3'rder of the Ceurt. The __vrespb:ad e:2tVs;--. ﬁmteiad that the agzpeiianbbank i}__7e':dVv iéiat... ..... Eswnuaé generai meeting in §}§$A::t.;}'é"a{vention of the order of the Munsiﬁs Caart a:t:'«v.if£'t: !ée;:2 é~rasipur. It §s, tiwerefore, obvémss the:

the"v?é§;r3:tempt cempiained is sf the crder cf the ..Cau.r"t" cf tése Eﬁunséff at Haéenaraséﬁasr. 'FM 312%? fi§$d by Iyanna at Grigéaai Suit 949.26% 9? 3.992, ﬁrs the fiée cf the M_uns%ff's Court at Haéeaayasépur is a separate suét am: the :31,:est%on sf coraséderatisn cf contempt cf the order cf that team: éoes net arise in the appeaés '>:

before this court, as there is no aﬁegatian 'sf' dissbedéence cf any erder made in the two out 92' which the two appeais_.:'_ 'ar§$$--.:_ : . ...... Mxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxgxxxkxx: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxkxxxxxxxxxxxxxxyI E If there is ariy breach of thef"o:"c;%érA~to:§*trrj'itté.d the appaiiant as aiieged,-«.i_:_he fémééy is-:T.fai"«.i!';'='e~i¥._a_V¥:>Ee_:'§ to the respondents- §$§'a2.i:.;91tiffs 50.. tﬁe ilrovisibns undez-:&5;-rder%39A,'V.[m}e._zA afvaheicivas .Precedure Code,""*t'h:1: t9}:z ivb'éf{$re; the court in which the.ai!ege§!w-b2;e:ach--.t?{év_§'?5;'e% has taken mace a"n'<§'j:;jT. %§ot gibefcré 'th:i:'s. ."--.«,::=.u.i3:t. with this <>bseri}a};_i'-e:}é""'t'h§: ¢:ajTn§Aén.t§':§n"'ﬁat the appeiiant Es Zguéity <i>}f '*{.c':c2_:t°»'4*e~nf1';:i§_:'a:1_t$-- that it shouid be prevaﬁt {#63: "pro sa,§ii;A§i% f'-5 zippeai s és raj acted. Serﬁkriii ~~~~ ~16 ef the Ccmtempt sf Ceﬁrts Ad, 1591?': T. rfie3:fci:=§ fgiiows:

'iﬁxwer of High Court to punish contemﬁts ..<i'f'Vsiii§ﬂordinate courts. -- Every High Court shaki __ haﬁ and exercése the same jurisdiction, powers and authority, ks accordaace wéth the same procedasre and practice, in ressect of ctontampts of courts subordinate is it as it has and exercises in resaect ef contampts of itseif: \ /".

an Provided that he High Court shaii take cegnizance of a centempt aﬁeged to have cczmmitted in respect of a court subord§ea§%'a'ts§v1-S«i__j' where such contempt is an ofFence.Vg>@m.i.s%éégb§e T under the Indian Penai Code' (459: V V 5?-am a reading of t%§e.._.pre%.iis_i6n, it.'"isZ_:eieerjth%at. K Section 10 of the Act enabIeeL"ﬂj:e te; exercise the same jur§sdict§onV,A~--...ﬁ:3we%% 3;_né"~--a'u.f§1'ority, which it can exercise in respect of ;ee.iem;«i_e.f s:s;e::;g»;en in respect: of corztempts §;Vf._i(;4<)A{§1ert§: s_L:§beE'd'§Je a :;:-

2A of Order 39 cf the Code ;"ea9-t3s_4e.<=:.éfe':'2<_).§.?~ar:§fs_:" é . V "¢eeeequence of disobedienm or 3 injunction ~»- (1) In the case of _ * e{i'::ebe§.i_eg.:ce of any injunction granted er ether o:j€1e§?'i:%é7ade uneer me 1 or 2 or breach cf any the terms on which the iejunctien was __ greeted or the order made, the Court granting the iniunctéen er marking the order, or any Ceurt; tc: which the suit or nroceedingwig transferred, may order the preperty of the person guﬁty of such disobedien e er breach to E be attached, and may also order' such persc.::.._b to be detained in the cwii prisan far a term4jnz5Tt «.._:"'~ exceeding three months, uniess _ :

meantime the cam: directs his re¥ease}V:"_'~«...V (L::A;j:de§-:=!§«r.:f3zi'§:, §§ .;:?v é T An appeai shail ﬁe ffom' az: arrﬂezvg/""';:taVss:evt:iv 'Lgzéﬁﬁr 39 Ruie 2A of the Code, én .9? the gﬁféjceﬂfare under Order 43 Rule 1(r) a'r'e:----:3._"fu;1ci'§r§;%z.é"p_i*:§$?§s§»¢n of Sectéen 184 cf the Code. ' ,8--.~2. §s«: :c£éia% 'i%*;ai:v,"jV the Cede itseﬁf pmvides for a :§.us%::pré§ie£iVujfe».§'n§"'+a-ifficaciezss remedy. It $5 sewed iaw, that:LiftheVéta4€'u_t*e§.i'ovEdes for a thing to be acme $5': a pa_:r§t:Ec;2_iAarVma§§r:~er,____thven, it has 22:: be done in that manner ' ;a7'§o.nez.»v '!'h§;...f:a.de itself contaérzs eﬁabcrate and exhaustive H 'ﬁfe?iévfcﬁ-.'."fQfT:=.Vdyaaéing with the disobedience: or breach sf ir2jii':§?.c*§f'§9Vr;'V§'}rdar granted or other order made zmder Gsﬁer x3?'-Ruééi 1 or M59 2. The feasara for cenferring such pawer Cmsrt is abvious, in that, the Ceurt which granted the 'V Wercéer shouid be ahie to see that its ordar Es obeyed and if breached, it shaéé dea! with the matter in the maﬁner Ba T'\) (""1 proizideé under iaw, ta see that its order is obeym am given effect to.

'Five previsicn of the Act is {east iritei"2_de§_'i:;:; the made of obtaining reiief 3}s provided under Order 39 Risig 2.£x"oAr_"'t:> de;i,%;'.i.ti'}"e "dei*fé%'ivc;af$V» Eegiitimateiy open in such a'f<i'%iVV:c._>"r;s, §i'1v<'i§'ii_(i iAfii.§V: "fight ta' have or take away';:i;'ma ofvvépuiéeai under Section 194 read withV%QVrc1i¢ri'i43fV'ARuié' 'x_'§.I(;iV'>)'--'~~af the Code. in our considei'ed';Qiew;3--_ in ah éxté.7pti.aria% case, where the proviéion '_A'Li;{:ive;fV_ _o_i'ué:"dezr 39 cf the Code is renciefesq ii'ica'pVa:bi:¥$$A':ii_"'§i$iii:"i§ reiief ta an aggrieved party if? adaqtiate érieasufe 'anti' in prapar time, the provisions of

- ';h'éiAEtcé'ii.A_;be iriiiéﬁikéed 3:16 a contempt petition ﬂied in this find any exceptioizai case having been i'?i8_jdeV""'(3i5;f~"A§'3Y the compiainant, pointing out that, the .j;L:riéci»i.ci:icn conferred or: the Ciiiii Court wider Order 39 =. 'Ri.:.iAé 2-A ef the Case is not adequate ta dead with the ..§siti.:atian, to grant reiief to him in adequate measure and within reascnabie time. Under the said prevision, the Civii "2 ("-1 Court has been empewered is erder the preperty .e"€_i§%a person guisty of disobedience ar breach of injur7.§§_€f§:;?§:';ii':f;:ié'rV. ts be attached and in addition, mm? a¥so order"";<s_::u<;¥j1'V1."-7V\i'e":--*'s-'3v'£;"i' ' to be detained in the civéi prison ft-?"a"te_rtn netT ie5x;:ee*d~ing1". three months and in the meaTntimé;'.if»:thze is ;ezaf:é'§¥'§«éVc§'~.VV that the order which it made infu'a;%i'ari"_wV§i1¥§§§'"E€V had 'V granted under Order 39.__Ru3e"i 'a';¥f ?2V'V""§-2.35 bééfr obéyed, to direct reiease of the p'érJ*$.€>'r:".A'_§.;éV"'*%:_§%1e civii prisms. Further Enherg-:nt:.A{p$we:i::é Section 151 of the Code"ar. é:'A:&*;.i'd€iiasisdﬁgfe 'n§>t"subj§ect to any iémitatian. In exerci§e_Aof4'_the v;4v:_f's*aT{1i:ésj__'£:')rﬁer 39 9.11:3 2~«A read wéth Sectéan 1$E--, ti:eVC<_>u7:ft"cas§ units a wrong dam in véeéation or,_':d3;:sQ§e:.i§_encé"of.....§t«:a iajuncticm arder made against a '*;}:a r":~*;I.A ~16 of the Act can be invoked where there is amt: 6f'§L:aVé%idaiis§ng, Ecwering the authority arsd dignity at" c'€>a-'ﬁfnghvién the way 3? administration cf justice, by a V' i~ "'?$ﬂl§bi§§TdEr%at& Court.

\ / 8.3 in the case sf RN. oer ANS ej";»e§f=g~:ifs;,fvs. BHAGYABATI PRAMANEK AME emees repos'iﬁed,§§éVV:LC'2'G{§'{§') 4 SCC 490, it has been ebserved:-aéifu!§.e_v-ﬁe: ]

7. We may reiterete_ tha7t.V_t¥:e vvea";;e:r;,_ efi; . contemet is not ta bekzesee in "ab_:.£"néan€.e 0:

misused. !\i<:~r:*ne§i'.=. -§3':~nii-et be":.r~sed for executéan of the de.cfee'i--.er 35332.? ementatéoe ef an order .f.o;* whichv..ai'E:er:ze¥;§ve"'rei*eie§v ﬁe §aw és QrovEd:ed"'§;_:j. Efbisrereitoe the cam": is to be 'meVi'%}te.§1eVnce of the court's ,e.deigeE§ye_V"' e'i*1::.;.;* mejeetﬁ; ~ --..e_f_ Jaw. Further, an me' right to insist that the §:<}u§'ir.% shV§eu£:dv. 'e:§e?cVE'se such 3"L:risd§ct§on as __ cor§*.;emptVV'§.sA'~bei'eéeen e contemner and the vteurt' 2 ...... H {Emphasis supplied) it has been heid that, a person who does not take fkegﬁs te execute the decree/order in accordance with proceduve prescribed by Eaw, shame not be encouraged te inveke the contempt jeriedictien cf the Seam: fer wee- saizisfactien of the decree er order.

\/ I .

9. The garoviséon under Grder 39 Ru§e.T""2A(1) reiates to the consequence of discbedierzce Qr.__i;%éa-?:%3"'oV€ injunction. The remedy available in case ef"'dV:§saj%_3eQd%ar2aé_ V' or breach of inﬁzncticn is pr<>v%ds§Jdb§ApVt'§éer;e§':2_ §§'ZSéé§:f,'.'§§!§f"§§'ﬁ?'i §§'¢ cur view, has bean maﬁa ':o_$:'av§€we 1a.V_spee¢%yAAi'ne:*<pVe.résifv?a--.,L and effective forum and ti: avaid rnaii:§.pV_2%'t:Eat:§* of Iifégation V before differant foruma. .=T%§enf§,a§%sia£%va"pziiéciés and intendment shomd ne€:a*.5'$a§*ivZv§":wei:g%::A_ ﬁ§.}_%th us in giving meaningfu! ir;.ta*@'feta£:iun§ ié':tha"';$'r:>vV§.$§:§am'. We do not find any eax£:ra<>fdaina}*§§.;=<:a'aa'--«.havi'ngV--'been made out by ma CDmQiéAiﬁ3if'£"€S, jﬁaisting for initiation and prosecutianaof VVfh_eVAA;}fc<§Eéedir:gs urzder the Act, than by avai§'§in;§jAV'thve réAﬁ*ae§i.§z.a.;:ravided under the Code. Frem the ' .éa'§a!.TApa4rs§;'a§i:v§ve, taktag mo consiéeration the remedy 'pfaie-"Edad the C966, the compkaint ﬁied under the Act; foir.;tai<Eng action far breach es" désebedience as? an afd'ar af temporary injunction maﬁa as' graﬁted by {ha égubardinate Ceurt, is not parméaaiiﬁe. in ear view, sashes':

'Niche subordinate court étseif has been suf"fic§ent%y empawared to deai with the sétuatien, where there is K 4"'.

disobedéeace or breach of the injunction erder -;;'s'_é'r%§:_'?+2§£dT"";§:z_f,; it, the same fowm shauici be appmached see that its erders are honoured :a'ﬁti'~--give'_n afféété t§ .;{aAth":.e;* ' than seeking punishment ungier ';'.12T c:*f_vA t'h"e; For the foregoing reaso5v%%'@.L v:§ héid fiige petétéen is not mairatainabie 33 %t{;_~..::bA'?e.:fe3?ec'.v£ ediAv. Hewaver, we make it :ie.:-1:" tha§_.:h é petitizm eniy an the ground '§;é§§:i.'ézetV'i§ome in the way cf the crv>__r1f_sV;V3{i'¢~;.iV§V1:é":§'¥:_:§ jtgggiédiction 9f the Civié Ccurt unééf O__ar*%§iéVr'j'v;'--3$§1.V__§.:f Ceda far aecessary yeéief, which"shLa$%A b'e'~~.Q:cﬁ«\~;;'§g'»';'A:.»:>i::é*:e§":{§'e5s;§"'.axpediiieuaiy and an Eta merit. Qrggiésed aétctf :i_§ §';'.*a''§§§r '. " . .....

Sell-

Iudge Séf-u Tuﬁge sac*

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court