Sri M Shashidharan vs K Bhoopala on 20 April, 2023
21. Learned counsel further submitted that the writ
petitions that were filed was in respect of the sites that were
formed in Kudlusingasandra Layout, but not in respect of
Chikkanahalli-Kammanahalli sites. The sale deed came to be
executed in respect of the sites in Chikkanahalli-
Kammanahalli Layout, but not in respect of Kudlusingasandra
21
Layout. Under such circumstances, the alienation of sites by
the Society cannot be brought under the purview of the
interim order 07.08.2017. When the subject matter of the
sale deed was not at all the subject matter of the writ
petitions, it cannot be said that the accused have committed
any contempt. The Court cannot extend or enlarge the scope
of the order or the of relief sought in the matter. Learned
counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Kangaro Industries (REGD) &
Ors. Vs. Jaininder Jain & Anr.6 in support of his contention
that since few of the accused have tendered unconditional
apology, same may be accepted and charge against them
may be dropped. However, learned counsel submitted that in
spite of the above, if the Court comes to the conclusion that
the accused have committed contempt of Court and that there
is willful disobedience of the interim order dated 10.03.2016
and 07.08.2017, accused Nos.1, 3, 6 and 7 would tender
unconditional apology and they seek pardon from this Court.
Hence, he prays for dropping the contempt proceedings
against the said accused.