Sri. K.Somanath Nayak vs Sri. D.Veerendra Heggade on 5 May, 2022
In the case of U.C. SURENDRANATH v. MAMBALLY'S
BAKERY reported in (2019)20 SCC 666, at paragraph 7 of the
judgment, it is held thus:
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (1.28 seconds)Documents citing
U.C. Surendranath vs Mamballys Bakery on 22 July, 2019
T.Sudhakar Pai vs M/S Manipal Academy Of Higher Education on 17 July, 2023
(ii) U.C.SURENDRANATH vs MAMBALLY'S
BAKERY ((2019) 20 SCC 666).
Saroj vs Mcd (South) Th. Commissioner And Ors on 9 September, 2024
57. While explaining the scope of the given provision, the
Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled as U.C. Surendranath vs
Mamballys Bakery, AIR 2019 SUPREME COURT 3799 held as
under: -
Jeet Ram Bhardwaj (Counter Claim) vs Saroj on 9 September, 2024
57. While explaining the scope of the given provision, the
Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled as U.C. Surendranath vs
Mamballys Bakery, AIR 2019 SUPREME COURT 3799 held as
under: -
Saroj vs Jeet Ram Bhardwaj And Anr on 9 September, 2024
57. While explaining the scope of the given provision, the
Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled as U.C. Surendranath vs
Mamballys Bakery, AIR 2019 SUPREME COURT 3799 held as
under: -
Sri Ananda Reddy vs Smt Radhamma on 29 November, 2024
12. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective
parties, it is not in dispute that the respondents filed a suit
seeking the relief of partition and interalia sought for the relief of
temporary injunction. It is also not in dispute that the Trial
Court passed an order on 09.01.2002 restraining defendant
Nos.1 to 3 from alienating the suit schedule properties till their
filing of objections to I.A.No.1. It is not in dispute that
objections to I.A.No.1 was filed on 02.08.2003 and before that
9
the property was sold on 10.10.2002 in favour of one Sri B.K.
Srinath by this appellant. Though the grounds are urged in the
appeal memo, the learned counsel for the appellant argued only
on humanitarian ground relying upon the judgments referred
supra. No doubt, the Apex Court in the judgment in the case of
Surendrananth (supra) held that there must be willful
disobedience of the orders passed by the Court.
Deepa Kumari vs Narain Dass & Others on 5 March, 2026
27. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in case titled as U.C.
SURENDRANATH vs. MAMBALLY'S BAKERY 2019 (20) SCC
666, has held as follows :-
Virendra Bhardwaj vs Santosh Sharma on 14 January, 2025
In U.C. Surendranath v Mamballys Bakery, Civ Appl.
No.5775/2019 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the bench of Justices R.
Banumathi and AS Bopanna had observed thus: "For finding a person guilty
of willful disobedience of the order under XXXIX Rule 2A C.P.C. there has to
be not mere "disobedience" but it should be a "willful disobedience". The
allegation of willful disobedience being in the nature of criminal liability, the
same has to be proved to the satisfaction of the court that the disobedience
was not mere "disobedience" but a "willful disobedience" and that the
allegation of willful disobedience being in the nature of criminal liability the
same has to be proved to the satisfaction of the court that the disobedience
was not mere 'disobedience' but 'willful disobedience.
1