MIs. M.R.N.INDUSTRIES v. THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA CCC NO.702 OF 2010 CCV!() cte id c ctf ci( BETWEEN: MIs. M.R.N.INDUSTRIES REP BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER M.R.NAVEEN KUMAR S/O M.RNARASAIAH SHE’TTY AGE: 39 YEARS, GADWAL ROAD BIODODDI VILLAGE RAICHUR TALUK & DISTRICT (BY SRI.N.R.BHASKAR & SRI.GVEND B.H, ADVS.) ... COMPLAINANT AND:
THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA COMMERCE & INDUSTRIAL DEPT. BY THE PRL. SECRETARY AND EX-OFFICIO - CHAIRMAN STATE LEVEL CO-ORDINATION COMMI’FI’EE SRI.V.P.BALIGAR. AGE: MAJOR VIKAS SOUDHA DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR ROAD BANGALORE- 560 001 2
THE JOINT DIRECTOR SRI.M.S.MUDAKAVI, AGE: MAJOR DISTRICT INDUSTRIAL CENTRE (DIC) RAICHUR-584 101
THE DIRECTOR SRI.G.RAMACHANDRA. AGE: MAJOR DEPT. OF AGRICULTURAL MARKETING NO.11, RAJ BHAVAN ROAD BANGALORE -560 001
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING COMMIYFEE. BY ITS SECRETARY SRI.VITHAL PUJARI, AGE: MAJOR APMC YARD, RAICHUR-584 101 .. .ACCUSED (SRI.S.S.KUMMAN. GOVT. ADV. FOR Al & A2 SRI.MALLIJARJUNA C.BASAREDDY. ADV. FOR A3 & A4) This CCC is filed under Sections 1 1 and 12 of the Contempt of Court Act praying to take cognizance of the contempt committed by the accused and punish them in accordance with law for disobeying the order of this Court dated 26.2.10 passed in WP No.80676/10 vide Annexure-A. contemptuous This CCC coming on for Mr.N..K.PATIL, J. made the following: framing charges today, ORDER In the instant contempt petition. the complainant initiate disobedience of the order dated 26.2.2010 passed in WP contempt proceedings view of No.80676/2010 against the accused. 3 complainant,
2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for learned Government Advocate appearing for accused Nos. 1 & 2 and the learned counsel appearing for accused Nos.3 & 4.
3. During the course of the submissions, the learned Government Advocate appearing for accused Nos. 1 and 2 filed an affidavit dated 6.9.2010 of one SrkMaflappa, Industries Centre, working as Joint Director, District Raichur, Raichur District stating that, the 2nd accused has filed application In WP Nos.80676/ 10 for extension of time of six months for compliance of the directions Issued In WP ThIs application ified by No.80676/10 on 26.2.2010. accused No.2 had come up for consideration before the learned Single Judge on 6.9.20 10 and six months’ time Is extended for compliance of the order dated 26.2.20 10 of this Court as referred above. 4
4. Learned Government Advocate appearing for accused Nos.1 and 2 submitted that, the prayer sought for, In the Instant contempt petition does not survive for this contempt Initiated by the consideration. Therefore, complainant may be dropped.
As against this, the learned counsel complainant submitted that, he was not aware about the time extended In pursuance of the miscellaneous writ filed by accused Nos. 1 and 2 seeldng extension of time for the order passed In WP No.80676/10, compliance of whereas the learned counsel appearing for the accused Nos.3 and 4 submitted that the time was extended for a period of six months for compliance of the directions Issued by the learned Single Judge of this Court, as referred above.
In the light of the facts of the case and In the light of the statement made In paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 In the affidavit dated 6.9.20 10 filed by the 2 accused, a—. S instant contempt petition filed by the complainant stands dropped. reserving liberty to the complainant to redress his if so advised grievance before the appropriate legal forum, or need arises.
Accordingly. the instant contempt proceedings initiated against the accused stands dropped. Ordered accordingly. Sd,’ JUDGE RV
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.