Karnataka High Court
Yallappa S/O. Maliyappa Munavalli @ ... vs Ashok Doddagunti on 9 July, 2013
Bench: N.Kumar, H.S.Kempanna
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JULY 2013
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.S.KEMPANNA
CCC No.3086/2013 (CIVIL)
Between:
Yallappa
(Wrongly shown as Mallappa in the
Impugned order and also in Form No.7)
S/o.Maliyappa Munavalli @ Honnalli,
Age 72 years, Occ. Agriculture,
R/o.: Katraki Village, Tq.: Bilagi,
District Bagalkot.
... COMPLAINANT
(By Sri.S.L.Matti, Advocate)
And:
1. Ashot Dodagunti,
Asst. Commissioner, Jamkhandi,
Kacheri Road, Jamkhandi,
District Bagalkot.
2. L.B. Kulkarni,
Tahasildar, Bilagi,
District Bagalkot.
:2:
3. Siddaramappa
S/o.Narasimha Malali,
Age 62 years, Occ.: Agriculture,
R/o.Katrki Village, Tq. Bilagi,
District Bagalkot.
...ACCUSED
This CCC is filed under Sections 11 and 12 of the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, praying to initiate
proceedings of contempt against respondent Nos.1 and
2 and take appropriate action.
This CCC coming on for orders this day,
N.Kumar J., made the following:
ORDER
This contempt petition is filed complaining of the disobedience of the order dated 09.11.2006 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in appeal No.861/2006, directing the parties to maintain status-quo. The Office has raised an objection to the effect that the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal is not a Court within the meaning of Section 10 of the Subordinate Court and therefore, the contempt petition is not maintainable.
:3:
2. The learned counsel for the complainant submits that Section 11 of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal Act, 1976 declares that the proceedings before the Tribunal to be judicial proceedings, which reads as under:
"11. Proceedings of Tribunal to be judicial proceedings.- Any proceedings before the Tribunal shall be deemed to be a judicial proceedings within the meaning of sections 193 and 228 and for the purpose of section 196 of the Indian Penal Code and the Tribunal shall be deemed to be a Civil Court for the purpose of section 195 and Chapter XXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Central Act 2 of 1974)
3. Therefore, he contends that an order passed by the Tribunal is judicial proceedings and falls within the meaning of the word subordinate Court as the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal is the subordinate to Karnataka High Court.
:4:
4. Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 confers the powers on the High Court to punish for contempt of the orders of the subordinate Courts. The contempt alleged is a civil contempt. The word "civil contempt" has been defined in the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 under Section 2(b), which reads as follows:
"b) "civil contempt" means willful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or willful breach of an undertaking given to a court"
5. Section 11 of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal Act, 1976 makes it clear that any proceedings before the Tribunal shall be deemed to be a judicial proceedings and the Tribunal shall be deemed to be a Civil Court within the meaning of Sections 193 and 228 for the purpose of Section 196 of IPC and a Civil Court for the purpose of Section 195 and Chapter 26 of the Cr.P.C. Therefore, the Tribunal is a Court for a limited purpose. It is not a Court for all the purpose. Though :5: the Tribunal is subordinate to Karnataka High Court, as it does not fall within the definition of a Court as defined under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, the power under Section 10 cannot be exercised to punish for the disobedience of the order passed by the Tribunal.
In that view of the matter, the office objection is sustained. The petition is held to be not maintainable and accordingly it is dismissed.
SD/-
JUDGE SD/-
JUDGE Vnp*