✦ Karnataka High Court · 16 Sep 2010

K. V. TRILOKACHANDRA v. THIS CCC IS FiLED U/S. 12 OF CONTEMPT OF COURTS

K L MANJUNATH, K GOVINDARAJULU

Case at a glance

Outcome

Dismissed

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed

Provisions considered

Key paragraphs

  • Para 22. S.A. RAMDAS, THE CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICER, HUBLI DHARWAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, LAMINGTON ROAD, HUBLI (By Sri. GURUDEV I GACHCHINAMATH ADV.) RESPONDENTS/ ACCUSED THIS CCC IS FiLED U/S. 12 OF CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, R/W. ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF 1950, PRAYING INDIA, THAT…

Judgment

(By Sri. RAVI V HOSAMANI ADV.) AND: PETITIONER/ COMPLAINANT K. V. TRILOKACHANDRA THE COMMISSIONER, HUBLI DHARWAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, LAMINGTON ROAD, HUBLI

Operative part

2.

S.A. RAMDAS, THE CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICER, HUBLI DHARWAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, LAMINGTON ROAD, HUBLI (By Sri. GURUDEV I GACHCHINAMATH ADV.) RESPONDENTS/ ACCUSED THIS CCC IS FiLED U/S. 12 OF CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, R/W. ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF 1950, PRAYING INDIA, THAT THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED ARE COMMIThNG CONTEMPT OF THE ORDERS OF THIS HONBLE COURT DATED: 16/09/2010 (S-R) ANNEXURE-A AND PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THEM AND PUNISH THEM. ISSUED IN W.P.NO.954 1/2006 INITIATE CONTEMPT GUILTY OF HOLD TO THIS CCC COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, K.L.MANJUNATH, J, MADE THE FOLLOWING:- ORDER The respondents have filed a counter stating that the order has been complied with, The grievance of the petitioner before this Court is that interest at 6% as ordered by the learned Single Judge has not been paid on the commuted pension amount. According to Mr.Gachchinamath, commutation amount, the full pension was paid to the petitioner. Therefore, he cannot claim interest from the settlement date of retirement till the date of payment. According to him, from the date of payment of commutation amount, the pension has been reduced. At the reduced rate, the petitioner is drawing the pension. In the circumstances, we do not see any violation of the Court order. :3: Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Contempt is dropped. Sd/ JUDGE RKK/

Questions this judgment answers

What did the Court decide in this case?

The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the petition is dismissed

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 — s. 12; Constitution of India — art. 215.

Which court decided this case, and when?

Karnataka High Court, on 16 Sep 2010. The bench was K L MANJUNATH, K GOVINDARAJULU.

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.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Karnataka High Court or eCourts case status. ← Search more judgments