SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2004 Supreme(SC) 1144

Supreme Court Of India
D.M. DHARMADHIKARI AND A.K. MATHUR, JJ.
B.K. SAVITHRI AND ANOTHER-Appellants
Versus
B.V.S. ANAND AND OTHERS-Respondents
Criminal Appeals Nos. 459-60 of 2003,
Decided on September 23, 2004

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950, Articless 136, 215 and 129 - Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, Sections 17 and 12 - Contempt proceedings - Impleadment of private party - High Court impleaded private party in the contempt petition and directed demolition of temple building holding it to be unauthorised- Not proper- High Court without deciding the question whether any contempt was committed by the contemnors passed the impugned order- Order of the High Court set aside- Matter remitted back to High Court for decision afresh on the contempt petition.[Paras 5 and 8]

ORDER

1. These appeals are directed against two interim orders dated 13-3-2002 and 20-3-2002 passed by the High Court of Karnataka in a pending contempt a petition filed against the present appellants.

2. By the impugned order dated 13-3-2002, a private party has been allowed to be impleaded in the contempt petition before the High Court.

3. By the impugned order dated 20-3-2002, the High Court has directed demolition of the temple alleged to have been unauthorisedly constructed.

4. This Court on 27-3-2002, while issuing notice on the special leave petitions granted stay of the impugned orders in the following terms:

"Issue notice.

Stay of the operation of the order dated 13-3-2002 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in impleading application in Contempt Petition No. CCC (Crl.) No. 41 of 2001 and order dated 20-3-2002 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Contempt Petition No. CCC (Crl.) No. 41 of 2001 and stay of demolition of the temple situated at Site No. 591A, 5th Main, 4th Block, Rajajinagar, Bangalore 560 010, Karnataka."

5. After hearing learned counsel appearing for the parties, in our view, the High Court was clearly in error in impleading a private party in a contempt petition which is a subject-matter between the Court and the contemnor.

6. We are also of the view that the impugned order directing demolition of the alleged unauthorised construction of the temple on the land could not have been passed by the High Court without deciding the question whether any contempt was committed by the contemnors, and was required to be purged.

7. For the aforesaid reasons, we allow the appeals. Both the impugned orders are set aside. The contempt petition is pending before the High Court. We remit• the matter to the High Court for taking a decision in the pending contempt petition in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top