Contempt Petition No. 229 of 2023 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:10551-DB CCC No. 229 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 229 OF 2023 BETWEEN: SMT. SUGUNA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, W/O. LATE K. MUNIRAJU, R/AT NO. 529, 3RD MAIN ROAD, MATHIKERE, BENGALURU-560 054. (BY SRI. UDAYA HOLLA, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SMT. SHILPA S GOGI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. BHARGAV N., ADVOCATE) …COMPLAINANT Digitally signed by MOUNESHWARAPPA NAGARATHNA Location: High Court of Karnataka AND: 1. SMT. MOHAN KUMARI VIBHU VIDHYA RATHOD, THE TAHASILDAR, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, DODDABALLAPURA, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA VIDANA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BANGALORE-500 001. - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:10551-DB CCC No. 229 of 2023 BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY. …ACCUSED (BY SRI. N. DEVADAS, AAG A/W SRI. HARISHA A.S., AGA FOR A1 AND PROFORMA R2) THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, PRAYING TO TAKE COGNIZANCE AND INITIATE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED HEREIN FOR HAVING INTENTIONALLY AND DELIBERATELY DISOBEYED THE ORDERS DATED 6.10.2017 PASSED BY THIS HONBLE COURT IN WP NO.43189/2017 (KLR- RR/SUR) ANNEXURE - B. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR) 1. This contempt petition is filed by the complainant to take cognizance and to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondent No.1 herein for disobeying the order dated 06.10.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.43189/2017 (KLR-RR/SUR) (Annexure- B). - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:10551-DB CCC No. 229 of 2023 2.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Sri Udaya Holla, learned Senior Counsel along with Smt. Shilpa S. Gogi, learned counsel for Sri. Bhargav, learned counsel, who is on record for the complainant, and Sri N. Devadas, learned AAG along with Sri Harisha A.S., learned Additional Government Advocate for accused No.1 and Proforma respondent No.2. 3. It is relevant to note that petitioner is arraigned as complainant in this contempt proceedings and that the land in question i.e., Land bearing Sy.No.26 of Hosahudya Village, Kasaba Hobli, Doddaballapura Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District was granted in favour of her husband late M.K. Muniraju as per the grant order dated 10.08.1979, followed by issuance of grant certificate on 10.10.1979. It is urged by the complainant that ever since the date of grant, her husband and other family members have been in possession and enjoyment of the land in question. The katha of the property was transferred in the name of her husband M.K. Muniraju, which is indicated in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:10551-DB CCC No. 229 of 2023 4. This contempt proceeding is initiated after lapse of 366 days and to that effect I.A.No.1/2023 is filed seeking condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The application is accompanied with an affidavit seeking condonation of 366 days delay in initiating this contempt proceedings against the accused. 5. Learned Senior Counsel for the complainant is placing reliance on the judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the decision M/S. A.V. KOWDI & CO. Vs. R.V. LAKSHMIDEVAMMA reported in ILR 1990 KAR 4355, addressing the issues and scope of Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 inclusive of Article 215 of the Constitution of India - List III Entry 41 in respect of Power in High Court to take action for contempt of itself even without Contempt of Courts Act. Power under Article 215 is absolute and unfettered and that, period of one year in Section 20 is applicable only to contempt of subordinate Courts. Apart from the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:10551-DB CCC No. 229 of 2023 above citation, learned Senior Counsel is placing reliance on the decision in PALLAV SHETH VS. CUSTODIAN AND OTHERS reported in (2001) 7 SCC 549 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has addressed the scope and issues of Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, relating to limitation period of contempt proceeding. The Contempt Proceeding can be initiated either by the Court's own motion, which should be by issuing a notice or it can be initiated otherwise. Than on the Court's own motion, which must be by filing an application before the Court, drawing the Courts attention regarding commission of contempt within a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed, which is discussed at Foot Note A. Whereas it is held in Foot note at B Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 Section 20 and Limitation Act, 1963 Section 17 - applicability - Limitation period of one year for initiating contempt proceedings is prescribed under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, being a period provided under a special law, which is different from the period prescribed - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:10551-DB CCC No. 229 of 2023 under Schedule to the Limitation Act, held Section 17 of that. 6. The above two citations are relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the complainant in support of the application seeking to condone the delay of 366 days in filing the instant contempt petition. 7. Keeping in view the submission made by learned Senior Counsel for the complainant, we deem it appropriate to refer to Section 2(b) and Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which reads as follows :- " 1. ……..XXX………XXX……..XXX…….. 2. Definitions.- In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,- (a) …………..xxxxxxxx…………….. (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; - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:10551-DB CCC No. 229 of 2023 ……..XXX………XXX……..XXX…….. ……..XXX………XXX……..XXX…….. 11. Power of High Court to try offences committed or offenders found outside jurisdiction.- A High Court shall have jurisdiction to inquire into or try a contempt of itself or of any court subordinate to it, whether the contempt is alleged to have been committed within or outside the local limits of its jurisdiction, and whether the person alleged to be guilty of contempt is within or outside such limits. 12. Punishment for contempt of court.- (1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act or in any other law, a contempt of court may be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both: Provided that the accused may be discharged or the punishment awarded may be remitted on apology being made to the satisfaction of the Court. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:10551-DB CCC No. 229 of 2023 (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no court shall impose a sentence in excess of that specified in sub-section (1) for any contempt either in respect of itself or of a court subordinate to it. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, where a person is found guilty of a civil contempt, the court, if it considers that a fine will not meet the ends of justice and that a sentence of imprisonment, direct that he be detained in a civil prison for such period not exceeding six months as it may think fit. (4) Where the person found guilty of contempt of court in respect of any undertaking given to a court is a company, every person who, at the time the contempt was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to, the company for the conduct of business of the company, as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the contempt and the punishment may be enforced, with the leave of the court, by the detention in civil prison of each such person: - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:10551-DB CCC No. 229 of 2023 Provided that nothing contained in this sub- section shall render any such person liable to such punishment if he proves that the contempt was committed without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent its commission. 5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- section (4), where the contempt of court referred to therein has been committed by a company and it is proved that the contempt has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company, such director, manager, secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of the contempt and the punishment may be enforced, with the leave of the court, by the detention in civil prison of such director, manager, secretary or other officer.” 8. On this premise, learned Senior Counsel is seeking consideration of I.A.No.1/2020 to condone the - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:10551-DB CCC No. 229 of 2023 delay of 366 days in preferring the Contempt petition and to initiate action against the respondent/Accused No.1. 9. On the contrary, learned AAG Sri N. Devadas, has taken us through Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The said Section 20 reads thus :- "20. Limitation for actions for contempt.- No court shall initiate any proceedings for contempt, either on its own motion or otherwise, after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed." 10. Learned AAG for the respondent/accused referred to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision in S. TIRUPATHI RAO Vs. M. LINGAMAIAH AND OTHERS reported in 2024 SCC ONLINE SC 1764 wherein at paragraph 41 it also referred to PALLAV SHETH cited supra holding that a Three Judge Bench of this Court had the occasion to consider whether the view taken by the Two Judge Bench in OM PRAKASH JAISWAL Vs. DK. MITTAL AND ANOTHER reported in (2000) 3 SCC 171 was - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:10551-DB CCC No. 229 of 2023 correct. In OM PRAKASH JAISWAL cited supra, it is held the Bench had taken the view that filing of an application or petition for initiation of proceedings for contempt does not amount to limitation of proceedings by the Court and initiation under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, can only be said to have occurred when the Court is of the prima facie opinion that Court has been committed and issue notice to the contemnor to show-cause, why he should not be punished. Such view did not find favour with the Bench in PALLAVA SHETH cited supra. It was observed that a provision like Section 20 has to be interpreted having regard to the realities of the situation and that, to narrow a view of Section 20 of the Act had been taken in OM PRAKASH JAISWAL cited supra, which does not seem to warrant the view taken, not only because of hardship but that it would cause injustice. Relevant passages from the decision in PALLAVA SHETH cited supra was also referred. Whereas paragraph No.53 of the aforesaid judgment indicates that reverting to the point of limitation, even in case of a petition disclosing - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:10551-DB CCC No. 229 of 2023 facts constituting contempt, which is civil in nature, the petitioner cannot chose a time convenient to him to approach the Court. The Statute refers to a specific time limit of one year from the date of alleged contempt for proceedings to be initiated, as laid down by in PALLAVA SHETH supra that the action should be initiated within one year and not beyond, irrespective of when the proceedings for contempt are actually initiated before the High Court. 11. However, Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, which is referred supra is a statutory limitation. But Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is only filed seeking condonation of delay. When the very Statute itself indicates that the contempt proceedings shall be initiated within a period of one year or twelve months, it is the objectivity of Section 20 of the Act, and it cannot be dwelling about Article 129 and also Article 215 of the Constitution of India. The said Articles were also referred to in the cases cited supra, which is referred by the learned Senior Counsel in the matters of the complainant. - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:10551-DB CCC No. 229 of 2023 However, the decision in PALLAV SHETH cited supra at paragraph No.41 it has addressed the issues that one of the Principles underlying the Law of Limitation is that a litigant must act diligently and not sleep over his/her rights. In this background such an interpretation should be placed on Section 20 of the Act, which does not lead to an anomalous result causing hardship to the party, who may have acted with utmost diligence and because of the inaction on the part of the Court, a contemnor cannot be made to suffer. Therefore, keeping in view the reliance which is rendered by the learned Senior Counsel for the complainant and wherein the contempt proceeding has been initiated keeping in view the provision of Section 2(b) of the Act, which is punishment in nature as well as to be said that spirit in nature. Therefore, after lapse of 366 days, this contempt proceedings has been initiated by the complainant, which shows that he is neither diligent or vigilant, and the said issue is also addressed in the aforesaid judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in PALLAVA SHETH cited supra. Therefore, keeping - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:10551-DB CCC No. 229 of 2023 in view the aforesaid citations relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the complainant and also citations relied upon by the learned AAG for the respondent/accused No.1. 12. However, learned Senior Counsel for the complainant is referring to the preceding order sheet maintained in this contempt proceedings and whereby giving clarification relating to scope of Section 2(b) of the Act and also the provisions of Sections 11 and 12 of the Act, whether the contempt proceeding has to be initiated by the complainant as contemplated with the provisions of Section 20 of the Act. However, it is made clear that an order sheet maintained is only seeking to issue some sort of a direction or permitting the counsel to clarify the position. Merely because it is sought to clarify the position, it cannot be said that delay application ought to have been considered. Accordingly, even on this premises also this contempt proceedings do not survive for consideration. - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:10551-DB CCC No. 229 of 2023 13. In the meanwhile, Smt. Shilpa S. Gogi, who is present before the Court personally on behalf of the complainant and she has secured the services of Sri Udaya Holla, learned Senior Counsel. Learned Senior Counsel has sought for liberty. 14. Cognizance is a judicial action, which is to be taken, keeping in view the relevant provision of the Contempt of Courts Act. But considering the provision of Section 20 of the said Act, this contempt proceedings does not survive for consideration, consequently this contempt petition is dismissed. However, liberty as sought for is granted in accordance with law. Sd/- (K.SOMASHEKAR) JUDGE Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE NG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13 CT:SNN