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

Sunitha Mary Lopes vs V Ponnu Raj on 16 April, 2021

Bench: Chief Justice, Suraj Govindaraj

                            1



  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL, 2021
                       PRESENT
      THE HON'BLE MR. ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE
                          AND
      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
                 CCC NO.197/2021 (CIVIL)

BETWEEN

SUNITHA MARY LOPES
W/O FRANCIS LOPES
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
R/AT ST ANTHONY NILAYA
NEHRU NAGAR, 3RD CROSS
SAGARA TOWN
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT
WORKING AS JUNIOR ENGINEER
IN KARNATAKA POWER
CORPORATION LTD
OPERATION BATCH-I, EE-I
S E OFFICE, BTPS, KODTHINI
BELLARY DISTRICT-587710                    ...COMPLAINANT

(BY SRI HANUMANTHAPPA B. HARAVI GOWDAR, ADVOCATE)

AND

V. PONNU RAJ
MANAGING DIRECTOR
KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LTD
A GOVT. COMPANY
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE
AT NO.82, SHAKTHI BHAVAN
RACE COURSE ROAD
BANGALORE-560001                              ...ACCUSED

(BY SRI AJAY J. NANDALIKE, ADVOCATE)
                                 2




      THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF
THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 PRAYING TO
INITIATE CONTEMPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST
THE        RESPONDENT/ACCUSED              FOR        FLAGRANT
DISOBEDIENCE OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED
SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.NO.58597/2017 DATED 15.12.2018
VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

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

                            ORDER

Perused the affidavit filed by Sri Girish S.R., Executive Engineer (Mechanical), Karnataka Power Corporation Limited stating that the representation of the complainant was decided on 15th June 2019. There is a controversy about the date on which a copy of the said order was served upon the complainant. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the complainant is that there are two different copies of the order dated 15th June 2019 bearing different inward numbers.

2. Suffice it to say that the order of which breach is alleged has been complied with. Hence, no further action is warranted under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 3

3. Accordingly, the contempt petition is disposed of. It will be always open for the complainant to challenge the aforesaid order in accordance with law.

Sd/-

CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-

JUDGE bkv