C. Shakunthala vs H. P. Udayakumar

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2012 Supreme(SC) 42

2012 (1) Supreme 699
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P. Sathasivam and J. Chelameswar, JJ.
C. Shakunthala & Ors. — Appellant(s)
versus
H.P. Udayakumar & Anr. — Respondent(s)
Criminal Appeal No. 158 of 2012
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 72 of 2009)
Decided on : 16-1-2012

Headnote:Contempt of Courts Act, 1971- Section 11(2) -Eviction petition filed by original owner of suit property against tenants-Decreed by Competent Court-On failure to deliver vacant possession, initiation of execution proceedings -Applications filed by respondent1, business partner of tenant , opposing execution petition- Contempt Petition filed by original owner- High Court held that there was a prima facie case against respondents to proceed further and frame charge and try them for criminal contempt -However High Court, by final impugned judgment acquitted respondents -Appeal- On complainant’s specific assertion and with reference to earlier orders and defence of the respondents/accused prima facie conclusion reached by Division Bench that the complainant had made out a case against accused to proceed further and adjourned the matter for two weeks for framing charges-When such was the position, held not understandable how another coordinate Bench after two years without any discussion and adverting to the relevant materials relied on by earlier coordinate Bench passed a cryptic order by dismissing the contempt petition- When the coordinate Bench on earlier occasion, based on the acceptable materials prima facie concluded that charges have to be framed, it was but proper by the present Bench to arrive and take a final decision in the light of the materials formulated by the earlier Bench- Prima facie conclusion arrived by earlier Bench in the year 2006, based on the acceptable materials, could not be ignored by another Bench at the time of the passing the final order as if it was an Appellate Court- Impugned order set aside and matter remitted to High Court for passing fresh order-Appeal allowed to said extent (Paras 8, 9)
       Facts of the Case :
        Issue in consideration in present appeal was When the coordinate Bench on earlier occasion, based on the acceptable materials prima facie concluded that charges have to be framed, whether it was proper for another coordinate Bench after two years to pass a cryptic order by dismissing the contempt petition, without any discussion and without adverting to the relevant materials relied on by earlier coordinate Bench .
       Findings of the Court :
        A. On Complainant’s specific assertion and with reference to earlier orders and defence of the respondents/accused prima facie conclusion was reached by Division Bench that complainant had made out a case against accused to proceed further and adjourned the matter for two weeks for framing charges. When such was the position, held not understandable how another coordinate Bench after two years without any discussion and adverting to the relevant materials relied on by earlier coordinate Bench passed a cryptic order by dismissing the contempt petition.
        B. When the coordinate Bench on earlier occasion, based on the acceptable materials prima facie concluded that charges have to be framed, it was but proper by the present Bench to arrive and take a final decision in the light of the materials formulated by the earlier Bench. Prima facie conclusion arrived by earlier Bench in the year 2006, based on the acceptable materials, could not be ignored by another Bench at the time of the passing the final order as if it was an Appellate Court. Impugned order was set aside and matter was remitted to High Court for passing fresh order. Appeal was allowed to said extent.

JUDGMENT

P.Sathasivam,J.

1) Leave granted.

2) This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 18.06.2008 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Criminal CCC No. 32 of 2005 whereby the High Court dismissed the petition of the appellants herein.

3) Brief facts:

(a) The appellants herein are the children and legal representatives of late M. Channappa, who was the original complainant/landlord before the High Court. Late M. Channappa was the owner of the property bearing Old Survey No. 39/2A, Yediur Village, Bangalore South Taluk. He let out the eastern half portion of the said property to one Kachu Krishna Achari and western portion to one P.V. Lingaiah on rent. In view of the extension of the City, the property fell into the Bangalore City limits and is presently situated on the K.R. Road and bears No. 2038/A.

b) Late M. Channappa initiated eviction proceedings against both the said tenants and Kachu Krishna Achari came to be evicted pursuant to the decree granted by the competent court. The order of eviction was challenged by P.V. Lingaiah in HRRP No. 559 of 1996 before the High Court of Karnataka which came to be dismissed on 29.02.2000 granting two years time to vacate the tenanted premises subject to filing an undertaking by him.

c) Pursuant to the said order, Lingaiah filed an undertaking to vacate the tenanted premises and deliver vacant possession to late M. Channappa. In the meantime, Lingaiah approached this Court by way of a special leave petition which also came to be dismissed.

d) Mr. Lingaiah failed to adhere to the undertaking given by him to vacate the premises within two years, instead in collusion with his son L. Suresh and H.P. Udayakumar, respondent No.1 herein, he created a sale deed dated 22.02.2001 whereby respondent No.1 is purported to have acquired a portion of the tenanted premises. Significantly, respondent No.1 is the business partner of L. Suresh, son of Lingaiah.

e) Thereafter, late M. Channappa initiated contempt proceedings against Lingaiah, his son Suresh and H.P. Udayakumar, respondent No.1 herein. Since respondent No.1 and Suresh were not parties to the earlier petition, contempt proceedings were dropped against them and the High Court by its order dated 06.02.2004 convicted and sentenced Mr. Lingaiah to undergo simple imprisonment for three days. Being aggrieved with the order of the High Court, late Channappa filed an appeal before this Court for enhancement of the sentence awarded to Mr. Lingaiah which is still pending.

f) As Mr. Lingaiah failed to vacate the tenanted premises, late Channappa also filed execution proceedings before the Court of Small Causes, Bangalore under Order 21 of CPC. The Court of Small Causes issued delivery warrant for delivery of possession of the tenanted premises.

g) While the matter was pending, on 18.12.2004, the respondent No.1 herein filed an application under Order 21 Rule 97 to 101 read with Section 151 CPC in Execution Petition No. 2658 of 2004 seeking adjudication of his right, title and interest in respect of the property in question contending that he was the absolute owner of the said property in terms of the sale deed dated 22.02.2001 and that late M. Channappa had no interest in the said property. He also contended that as late M. Channappa attempted to interfere with the property, he filed O.S.No. 15265 of 2002 before the Civil Court for permanent injunction wherein the court had granted an ad interim order of status quo.

h) It is evident that respondent No.1 is the business partner of the son of Lingaiah and he has been set up to file application to protract the proceedings.

i) In the light of the stand taken by respondent No.1, Channappa filed O.S. No. 3814 of 2005 against respondent No.1 for delivery of the vacant possession of the property.

j) The Executing Court vide judgment dated 08.06.2005 dismissed the application filed by respondent No.1 after adverting to the material on record. Responden

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

2012 Supreme(SC) 42

2012 (1) Supreme 699SUPREME COURT OF INDIAP. Sathasivam and J. Chelameswar, JJ.C. Shakunthala & Ors. — Appellant(s)versusH.P. Udayakumar & Anr. — Respondent(s)Criminal Appeal No. 158 of 2012(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 72 of 2009)Decided on : 16-1-2012

Judicial Analysis

2012 (1) Supreme 699
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P. Sathasivam and J. Chelameswar, JJ.
C. Shakunthala & Ors. — Appellant(s)
versus
H.P. Udayakumar & Anr. — Respondent(s)
Criminal Appeal No. 158 of 2012
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 72 of 2009)
Decided on : 16-1-2012