SRI B K NARASIMHA v. SRI K CHANNAPPA GOWDA
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
Hence, the petition is dismissed
Provisions considered
- Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 ss. 11, 12
Judgment
Operative part
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.SREEDHAR RAO AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.MANOHAR CCC No.752/2012 BETWEEN : SRI B K NARASIMHA S/O LATE K GOPALAKRISHNAIAH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS AGRICULTURIST R/O SRI LAXMI NIVAS BELA, POST BELA, VIA KUMBLA, KASARGOD-571321. ... COMPLAINANT (By Sri VISHWANATH R HEGDE, ADV.) AND : SRI K CHANNAPPA GOWDA DEPUTY COMMISSIONER D.K, MANGALORE-575001. ...ACCUSED This CCC is filed under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, praying to punish the accused for violation of order dated 17.2.2011 in WP No.35833/2010 and order dated 25.7.2011 in WA No.4184/2011 having committed contempt of court. This CCC coming on for preliminary hearing this day, K.SREEDHAR RAO, J, pass the following: 2 ORDER The time prescribed for disposal of the application by the learned Single Judge has been modified by the Division Bench. In para-7 of the order dated 28.7.2011 passed in WA No.4184/2011, the following observation is made:
7. Then coming to the time limit of 4 months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, if we indicate or insist any conditions to dispose of the said application, the very liberty reserved to challenge the possession certificate will be purposeless. In that view of the matter, we make it clear that the authority, which considers the application dated 12.6.2006 can also consider the plea of the appellant that there is a delay and laches on the part of the Government in initiating such action and it is left to the authority concerned to decide the same in accordance with the procedure.
In view of the above, it appears to be no violation of the order. Hence, the petition is dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE bkm.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Hence, the petition is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 — ss. 11, 12.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.