Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

M/S Ashed Valmark vs State Of Karnataka on 14 June, 2022

Author: Ritu Raj Awasthi

Bench: Ritu Raj Awasthi

                            1




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

                        PRESENT
 THE HON'BLE MR. RITU RAJ AWASTHI, CHIEF JUSTICE
                          AND
        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
                CCC NO. 79/2022 (CIVIL)

BETWEEN


1.      M/S ASHED VALMARK
        AN ASSOCIATION OF PERSON
        REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSOCIATES

(a)     M/S ASHED PROPERTIES AND
        INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED
        REPRESENTED BY ITS
        MANAGING DIRECTOR
        SRI SAMEER KHAN

(b)     M/S VALMARK BUILDERS
        A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM
        REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER
        SRI NAKODA CONSTRUCTION LIMITED
        REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR
        MAHAVEER GULECHA

        BOTH ARE SITUATED AT NO.133/1
        10TH FLOOR, RESIDENCY ROAD
        BENGALURU - 560 025

2.      REGENCY PINNACLE HEIGHTS
        OWNERS ASSOCIATION
        OFFICE SITUATED AT
        REGENCY PINNACLE HEIGHTS
        RACHENAHALLI
                           2



      BENGALURU - 560 077
      REPRESENTED BY ITS
      AUTHORISED SIGNATORY
      MR. H. RAJENDRA KAMATH
      S/O SRI K SUBHASCHANDRA KAMATH
      AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
                                       ...COMPLAINANTS

(BY SMT. LATHA S SHETTY, ADVOCATE)


AND


1.    STATE OF KARNATAKA
      REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
      DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
      VIDHANA SOUDHA
      BENGALURU - 560 001

2.    MR. GAURAV GUPTA
      THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER
      BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
      N R SQUARE
      BENGALURU - 560 001

3.    MS. PALLAVI
      JOINT COMMISSIONER
      (YELAHANKA ZONE)
      BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
      BENGALURU - 560 001

4.    MR. INDRA KUMAR G
      EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
      STORM WATER DRAIN
      YELAHANKA ZONE
      BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
      BENGALURU - 560 001

5.    MR. JAGADISH
      ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
                              3



     STORM WATER DRAIN
     (YELAHANKA ZONE)
     BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
     BENGALURU - 560 001

6.   MR. CHANDRASHEKHAR
     ASSISTANT ENGINEER
     STORM WATER DRAIN
     (YELAHANKA ZONE)
     BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
     BENGALURU - 560 001
                                                   ...ACCUSED

(BY SRI H.R. SHOWRI, AGA FOR A-1;
 SRI V.G. BHANUPRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR A-2)



     THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTION 11 AND 12 OF THE
CONTEMPT    OF     COURTS    ACT,      1971,   PRAYING      TO
INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED HEREIN FOR
CONTEMPT    OF    INTERIM   ORDER   DATED      24.02.2020   IN
W.P.NO.1981/2020 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE
BY ISSUING A NOTICE TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE ACCUSED
SHOULD NOT BE HELD GUILTY OF CONTEMPT IN TERMS OF
SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT,
1971 (ANNEXURE-A) & ETC.


     THIS   CCC   COMING    ON   FOR    ORDERS    THIS   DAY,
CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                                  4




                              ORDER

This contempt petition arises out of the order dated 24.02.2020 passed in W.P.No.1981/2020.

2. On the last date, Mr. V.G.Bhanuprakash, learned counsel appearing for accused No.2 had submitted that the estimate for reconstruction of wall has been prepared and the repair work shall be completed within a period of four weeks.

3. Today, when the matter is taken up, learned counsel for the complainants submits that the accused have reconstructed the wall as per the undertaking given by them on the last date, as such, this contempt petition has become infructuous.

4. Learned counsel appearing for accused No.2 also agrees for the same.

5. The contempt petition is accordingly dismissed as having become infructuous.

5

6. The pending interlocutory application does not survive for consideration and is accordingly disposed of.

Sd/-

CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-

JUDGE bkv