Case Note & Summary
The complainant, Dr. Shakeel Ahmed Khan, filed a contempt petition under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, alleging willful disobedience of a stay order dated 20.07.2018 passed by the III Additional District Judge, Kalaburagi in Miscellaneous Appeal No.24/2017. The stay order restrained the accused, Dr. Vinod Kumar, Zonal Commissioner of the City Corporation, from interfering with the complainant's possession of a building at House No.6/26, Muslim Chowk, Mominpura, Kalaburagi. The complainant had obtained permission to construct a building in 2014 and claimed to be in possession. The accused-Corporation issued a notice and took action against a different property, House No.6-26-1/2, which was not covered by the stay order. The Court examined the facts and found that the Corporation's actions were directed at a different property, and there was no evidence of willful disobedience of the stay order. The Court held that contempt requires willful and deliberate disobedience, and since the Corporation acted on a different property, no contempt was made out. The petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Contempt of Court - Willful Disobedience - Stay Order - Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - The complainant alleged that the accused-Corporation willfully disobeyed a stay order dated 20.07.2018 passed by the III Additional District Judge, Kalaburagi in Miscellaneous Appeal No.24/2017, which restrained the Corporation from interfering with the complainant's possession of a building at Muslim Chowk, Kalaburagi. The Court held that the Corporation's action of issuing a notice and taking action on a different property (House No.6-26-1/2) did not amount to contempt of the stay order, as the stay order pertained to House No.6/26. The Court found no willful disobedience and dismissed the contempt petition. (Paras 1-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the accused committed willful disobedience of the stay order dated 20.07.2018 passed by the III Additional District Judge, Kalaburagi in Miscellaneous Appeal No.24/2017, thereby constituting contempt of court under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Final Decision
The contempt petition is dismissed. The Court found no willful disobedience of the stay order as the Corporation's actions pertained to a different property.
Law Points
- Contempt of Court
- Willful Disobedience
- Stay Order
- Construction Permission
- Corporation
- Burden of Proof
Case Details
2020 LawText (KAR) (02) 62
G. Narendar, M. Nagaprasanna
Smt. Geeta Sajjanshetty, Sri P.S. Malipatil
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Contempt petition alleging willful disobedience of a stay order passed by the III Additional District Judge, Kalaburagi in Miscellaneous Appeal No.24/2017.
Remedy Sought
Initiation of contempt proceedings and punishment of the accused under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for non-compliance of the stay order.
Filing Reason
The complainant alleged that the accused-Corporation willfully disobeyed the stay order dated 20.07.2018 by interfering with his possession of the building.
Previous Decisions
The III Additional District Judge, Kalaburagi passed a stay order on 20.07.2018 in Miscellaneous Appeal No.24/2017 restraining the Corporation from interfering with the complainant's possession of House No.6/26, Muslim Chowk, Mominpura, Kalaburagi.
Issues
Whether the accused committed willful disobedience of the stay order dated 20.07.2018 passed by the III Additional District Judge, Kalaburagi in Miscellaneous Appeal No.24/2017, thereby constituting contempt of court under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Submissions/Arguments
The complainant argued that the accused-Corporation willfully disobeyed the stay order by issuing a notice and taking action against the property.
The accused contended that the action was taken against a different property (House No.6-26-1/2) and not the property covered by the stay order (House No.6/26).
Ratio Decidendi
Contempt of court requires willful and deliberate disobedience of a court order. In this case, the Corporation's action was directed at a different property (House No.6-26-1/2) not covered by the stay order, and therefore no contempt was made out.
Judgment Excerpts
The complainant herein has approached this Court invoking its contempt jurisdiction alleging disobedience of an order dated 20.7.2018 passed by the Court of the III Additional District Judge, Kalaburagi, in Miscellaneous Appeal No.24 of 2017.
The Court held that the Corporation's action on a different property did not amount to contempt.
Procedural History
The complainant filed a contempt petition under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 before the High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburagi Bench, alleging willful disobedience of a stay order dated 20.07.2018 passed by the III Additional District Judge, Kalaburagi in Miscellaneous Appeal No.24/2017. The petition was heard and dismissed on 27.02.2020.
Acts & Sections
- Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: 10, 12
