High Court of Karnataka Initiates Suo Motu Contempt Proceedings for Alleged Violation of Status Quo Order in Regular First Appeal. The court examined whether the accused wilfully disobeyed the status quo order dated 03.06.2013 passed in RFA No.4095/2013, invoking Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: DHARWAD
  • 24
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, initiated suo motu contempt proceedings under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India, against three accused: Mrs. Meena M Dongre, Mr. Vicky, and Shri D.A. Kamble (City Survey Officer, Belagavi). The contempt petition was registered pursuant to an order passed by a learned Single Judge in RFA No.4095/2013 on 07.12.2015, for alleged disobedience of a status quo order dated 03.06.2013, which was subsequently extended by orders dated 01.07.2013 and 31.07.2013. The RFA was filed by the plaintiff, Sadiq S/o Bas, against the defendants. The court noted that the status quo order required the parties to maintain the existing position as on the date of the order. The complainant, the High Court of Karnataka represented by the Registrar General, alleged that the accused had violated this order. The court, after hearing the Government Advocate and advocates for the accused, issued notice to the accused to show cause why they should not be punished for contempt. The matter was posted for further orders.

Headnote

A) Contempt of Court - Wilful Disobedience - Status Quo Order - Sections 11, 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Article 215 of Constitution of India - The High Court initiated suo motu contempt proceedings against three accused for allegedly violating a status quo order passed in a Regular First Appeal. The court examined whether the actions of the accused amounted to wilful disobedience of the court's order. Held that the matter required further examination and issued notice to the accused to show cause why they should not be punished for contempt. (Paras 1-3)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the accused persons have wilfully disobeyed the status quo order dated 03.06.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in RFA No.4095/2013, thereby committing contempt of court.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court issued notice to the accused to show cause why they should not be punished for contempt and posted the matter for further orders.

Law Points

  • Contempt of Courts Act
  • 1971
  • Sections 11 and 12
  • Article 215 of Constitution of India
  • Suo Motu Contempt
  • Disobedience of Court Order
  • Status Quo Order
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2017 LawText (KAR) (02) 6

CCC No.100157/2016

2017-02-14

Dr. Vineet Kothari, Sreenivas Harish Kumar

Sri C. S. Patil (Government Advocate for Complainant), Sri A P Murari (Advocate for A-1), Sri G B Naik and Smt P P Naik (Advocates for A-2), Sri Deepak S Kulakarni (Advocate for A-3)

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Suo motu contempt proceedings for alleged violation of a status quo order.

Remedy Sought

Initiation of contempt proceedings and punishment of accused for violating and disobeying the order dated 03.06.2013 in RFA No.4095/2013.

Filing Reason

Alleged disobedience of status quo order passed by learned Single Judge in RFA No.4095/2013 on 03.06.2013, extended on 01.07.2013 and 31.07.2013.

Previous Decisions

Order dated 07.12.2015 by learned Single Judge in RFA No.4095/2013 directing registration of suo motu contempt petition.

Issues

Whether the accused persons have wilfully disobeyed the status quo order dated 03.06.2013 passed in RFA No.4095/2013, thereby committing contempt of court.

Submissions/Arguments

Government Advocate submitted that the accused violated the status quo order. Advocates for accused appeared and sought time to respond.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found prima facie case of contempt and issued notice to accused to show cause, indicating that wilful disobedience of a court order may constitute contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

Judgment Excerpts

This suo motu contempt petition was registered under the order passed by the learned Single Judge in RFA No.4095/2013 on 07.12.2015 for the alleged disobedience of the status quo order passed by the learned Single Judge in the aforesaid RFA on 03.06.2013.

Procedural History

The suo motu contempt petition was registered on 07.12.2015 pursuant to an order in RFA No.4095/2013. The matter came up for orders on 14.02.2017 before the Division Bench.

Acts & Sections

  • Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: 11, 12
  • Constitution of India: Article 215
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Refuses to Cancel NEET (UG) 2024 Examination Despite Alleged Paper Leak. Court Holds No Systemic Breach and Orders Segregation of Tainted Students.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition Challenging Trial Court Orders Dismissing Application Under Order 26 Rule 10 CPC Due to Misconception of Facts Regarding Substitution of Legal Heirs. The court held that orders based on factual error cannot be s...