Karnataka High Court
M/S Mrt Music vs Mr Jairam Ramesh on 14 November, 2024
Author: K.Somashekar
Bench: K.Somashekar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:46300-DB
CCC No. 1093 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 1093 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
M/S MRT MUSIC
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT
4TH FLOOR TTMC, BMTC BUILDING
YESHWANTHPUR CIRCLE
YESHWANTHAPUR
BANGALORE -560 022
REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER
MR M NAVEEN KUMAR.
...COMPLAINANT
(BY SRI. PRANAV KUMAR M - ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MR JAIRAM RAMESH
Digitally
signed by GENERAL SECRETARY
SUMATHY I/C COMMUNICATION PUBLICITY
KANNAN MEDIA INCLUDING SOCIAL AND DIGITAL
Location: MEDIA OF THE INDIAN
High Court of
Karnataka NATIONAL CONGRESS
HAVING HIS OFFICE AT NO.24
AKBAR ROAD NEW DELHI - 110011.
2. SMT SUPRIYA SHRINATE
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
W/O DHIRENDRA SINGH
CHAIRPERSON OF SOCIAL MEDIA
AND DIGITAL PLATFORMS OF
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:46300-DB
CCC No. 1093 of 2022
THE INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS
HAVING HER ADDRESS AT
NO.24 AKBAR ROAD
NEW DELHI-110 011.
3. MR RAHUL GANDHI
S/O LATE RAJIV GANDHI
MEMBER OF STEERING COMMITTEE
INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS
HAVING HIS ADDRESS AT NO.12
TUGHLAK LANE, NEW DELHI -110 011
TEL (011) 23795161
FAX-(011) 23012410.
...ACCUSED
(BY SRI SHATHABISH SHIVANNA - ADVOCATE FOR
SRI DEVADIGA - ADVOCATE)
THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF
THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 R/W ARTICLE 215 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO INITIATE
APPROPRIATE ACTION AND / OR PROCEEDINGS FOR WILLFUL
DISOBEDIENCE AND BREACH OF THE ORDER DATED 8.11.2022
PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN COMAP
NO.460/2022, BY THE ACCUSED NO.1 TO 3.
THIS CCC, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
AND
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:46300-DB
CCC No. 1093 of 2022
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR) Learned counsel Shri Pranav Kumar M is on record for the complainant but there is no representation for the said counsel. Learned counsel Ms. Leela P for Accused Nos.1 to 3 is on record and is represented by the learned counsel Shri Sathabesh Shivanna.
2. Though this contempt proceeding has been initiated keeping in view Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, neither the learned counsel for the complainant nor the complainant is present physically before Court to proceed with the matter. The complainant is neither diligent nor vigilant in pursuing the matter. Consequently, the contempt petition is dismissed for non-prosecution.
SD/-
(K.SOMASHEKAR) JUDGE SD/-
(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE KS