1. Contempt petitions — Wilful disobedience of court orders — Issuance of Transferable Development Rights and Development Rights Certificates under the BPAT Act. (Para 1 , 2 , 4 , 6 , 8 , 11 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 899
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.M. SUNDRESH, ARAVIND KUMAR, JJ.
Chaduranga Kantharaj Urs – Appellant
Versus
S.V. Ranganath And Ors. – Respondents
Inherent Jurisdiction Contempt Petition (C) No(s). 188-189 of 2013, in Civil Appeal No(s). 3309-3310 of 1997
With
Indrakshi Devi – Petitioner
Versus
Kkushik Mukerjee And Ors. – Respondents
Contempt petition (c) no(s). 237 of 2014 in civil appeal no(s). 3309-3310 OF 1997
With
Chaduranga Kanthraj Urs & Anr. – Appellant
Versus
Smt. Shalini Rajaneesh, IAS & Ors. – Respondents
Contempt Petition (C) No(S). 103 Of 2025 In Civil Appeal No(S). 3309-3310 of 1997
With
Smt. Deepa Malini Devi – Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Shalini Rajaneesh, Ias & Ors. – Respondents
Contempt Petition (C) No(S). 104 of 2025 In Contempt Petition (C) No(S). 688 OF 2021 And Contempt Petition (C) No(S). 556 of 2024 In Civil Appeal Nos. 3309-10 of 1997
With
Smt. Indrakshi Devi – Appellant
Versus
Dr. Rajneesh Goel & Ors. – Respondents
Contempt Petition (C) No(S).129 of 2025 In Contempt Petition(C) No(S). 556 of 2024 IN Civil Appeal No(S). 3309-3310 of 1997
With
Chaduranga Kanthraj Urs & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
P. Ravi Kumar & Ors. – Respondents
Miscellaneous application (C) No(s). 135 of 2025 in Contempt Petition (C) No(s). 688 of 2021 (In Civil Appeal No(s). 3310 of 1997), Contempt Petition (C) no(s). 578 of 2022 (in Civil Appeal No(s). 3305 of 1997), Contempt Petition (c) No(s). 716 of 2023 (In Civil Appeal No(s). 3307 of 1997), Contempt Petition (C) no(s). 555 of 2024 (In Civil Appeal No(s). 3310 of 1997), Contempt Petition (C) No(s). 556 of 2024 (In Civil Appeal No(s). 3309 of 1997), And Contempt Petition (C) No(s). 585 of 2024 (In Civil Appeal No(S). 3306 of 1997)
Decided on : 22-05-2025
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Gopal Sankarnarayanan, Sr. Adv Mr. Suhrith Parthasarathy, Adv. Ms. Rashmi Nandakumar, AOR Mr. Vishal Singhal, Adv. Ms. Amritha Sathyajith, Adv. Ms. Yashmita Pandey, Adv. By Courts Motion, AOR Mr. S. S. Shroff, AOR Mr. Abhay Kumar, AOR Mr. T. Harish Kumar, AOR Mrs. Lalita Kaushik, AOR Ms. Bina Madhavan, Adv. Mr. Balaji Verma, Adv. Mr. Tushar Singh, Adv. M/S. Lawyer S Knit & Co, AOR Mrs. Kanchan Kaur Dhodi, AOR Mr. Rajat Sehgal, AOR Mr. C.V. Bala Syamal, Adv. Mr. T.L.V. Raamyam, Adv. Mr. Hitesh Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar Chawla, Adv. Mr. Akhileshwar Jha, Adv. Mr. Javed Raza, Adv. Mr. Prashant , AOR Ms. Anindita Mitra, AOR Mr. Pratap Shanker, Adv. Ms. Puja Tiwari, Adv. Ms. Shilpi Shrivastava, Adv. Mr. Ankit Kumar, Adv. Mr. Swetank Shantanu, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Pai Amit, AOR Mr. Pramod Dayal, AOR Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Mr. Ankur S. Kulkarni, AOR Mr. Pramod Dayal, AOR
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Gopal Sankarnarayanan, Sr. Adv Mr. Suhrith Parthasarathy, Adv. Ms. Rashmi Nandakumar, AOR Mr. Vishal Singhal, Adv. Ms. Amritha Sathyajith, Adv. Ms. Yashmita Pandey, Adv. By Courts Motion, AOR Mr. S. S. Shroff, AOR Mr. Abhay Kumar, AOR Mr. T. Harish Kumar, AOR Mrs. Lalita Kaushik, AOR Ms. Bina Madhavan, Adv. Mr. Balaji Verma, Adv. Mr. Tushar Singh, Adv. M/S. Lawyer S Knit & Co, AOR Mrs. Kanchan Kaur Dhodi, AOR Mr. Rajat Sehgal, AOR Mr. C.V. Bala Syamal, Adv. Mr. T.L.V. Raamyam, Adv. Mr. Hitesh Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar Chawla, Adv. Mr. Akhileshwar Jha, Adv. Mr. Javed Raza, Adv. Mr. Prashant , AOR Ms. Anindita Mitra, AOR Mr. Pratap Shanker, Adv. Ms. Puja Tiwari, Adv. Ms. Shilpi Shrivastava, Adv. Mr. Ankit Kumar, Adv. Mr. Swetank Shantanu, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Pai Amit, AOR Mr. Pramod Dayal, AOR Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Mr. Ankur S. Kulkarni, AOR Mr. Pramod Dayal, AOR
The court underscored the necessity of compliance with its orders, establishing that willful disobedience warrants contempt findings and penalties, and altering compliance orders post-finding is impermissible.
Headnote:(A) Bangalore Palace (Acquisition and Transfer) Act, 1996 - Contempt of Court - Alleged willful disobedience of previous court orders regarding DRCs/TDRs - The court found that, despite clear past orders, the contemnors failed to comply, showing willful disobedience over years, leading to penalties. (Paras 1, 4, 10, 14)
(B) Contempt Proceedings - The court emphasized the need for compliance with its orders, noting that any further conditions imposed after a finding of contempt would alter previous orders unfavorably. (Paras 10, 12)
Facts of the case:
Contempt petitions filed for non-compliance with orders regarding issuance of DRCs/TDRs by the contemnors, who continued to evade compliance over a lengthy period despite repeated court assertions.
Findings of Court:
The contemnors were held guilty and fined, with specific directions for compliance re-emphasized and timelines set to ensure the issue was resolved.
Issues: The court addressed the issues of compliance with past orders and the implications of non-compliance.
Ratio Decidendi: The judgment affirmed that the court's orders must be complied with in full, and failure to do so justifies contempt findings and penalties.
Result: The contempt petitions were disposed of, with directions for compliance and costs awarded to the complainants.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. State's contention — Release of TDRs/DRCs should be stayed pending disposal of civil appeals and review petitions to protect the exchequer. (Para 2 , 9 , 12 )
3. Contempt jurisdiction is limited to examining compliance; the court cannot re-examine the correctness of its own orders or impose new conditions during such proceedings. (Para 3 , 10 , 12 , 13 )
4. Proceedings for contempt of court are restricted to verifying compliance and cannot be used to review, modify, or re-examine the merits of the underlying orders. (Para 10 , 12 , 13 )
5. Contempt petitions disposed of — TDRs/DRCs ordered to be released to complainants upon filing undertakings subject to the outcome of pending civil appeals. (Para 14 , 15 )
6. What is the scope of the court's jurisdiction in contempt proceedings regarding the compliance of its orders?
The court's jurisdiction in contempt proceedings is limited to examining whether specific orders have been complied with. It cannot act as an appellate court to re-examine the correctness of those orders or scrutinize issues outside the limited sphere of compliance. (Para 10 , 12 )
7. Can a court impose new conditions or modify original orders during the course of contempt proceedings?
No, imposing new conditions or altering the terms of the original orders during contempt proceedings would amount to tinkering, reviewing, or modifying those orders, which is impermissible within the limited scope of contempt jurisdiction. (Para 12 , 13 )
8. How can the court ensure compliance with its orders while protecting the state's interests during pending appeals?
The court may direct the beneficiaries to file an undertaking that the receipt of benefits is subject to the outcome of pending appeals and that the state shall have the first charge over any future compensation awarded. (Para 13 )
JUDGMENT :
Aravind Kumar, J.
1. The above contempt petitions had been filed for alleged wilful disobedience of the orders dated 21.11.2014; 17.05.2022 and 19.03.2024. By judgment dated 10.12.2024, this Court after taking note of the purported compliance affidavits dated 09.7.2024, whereunder the DRC’s/TDR’s for the subject land had been resolved to be issued by adopting the value as determined under the BPAT Act had rejected the same and had issued clear directions to re-issue the DRC’s/TDR’s, and for having dragged it’s feet for long number of years i.e., more than 10 years, the contemnors were held guilty of wilful non-compliance and mulcted the contemnors with costs, by assigning elaborate reasons. Yet, undaunted, the contemnors seem to be further dragging their feet by manoeuvres and same is deprecated. We say so, for the simple reason that contemnors under the umbrella of the legislation orders of the Court which ought to be implemented in letter and spirit is sought to be stifled or staved off which cannot be countenanced at any rate.
2. Having made all these attempts and having deposited the DRC’s/TDR’s before this Court in the names of the respective complainants (contempt petitioners) except that of the DRC’s/TDR’s in an incorrect name in so far as CP. 103 of 2025 is concerned, further I.A. No. 120858 of 2025 has been filed by the Under Secretary, DPAR, Government of Karnataka (not being a party to be present proceedings) raising fresh grounds and praying for not releasing the DRC’s/TDR’s in favour of the complainants till disposal of the Civil Appeals pending before this Court, and also on the ground that review petitions have been filed for review of the orders dated 21.11.2014, 17.05.2022 and 10.12.2024 amongst other grounds.
3. It would not be out of context to note at this juncture itself that contentions raised in the purported compliance affidavits are outside the purview of scrutiny or examination in these proceedings, for the reasons to follow hereinafter.
4. This Court by order dated 10.12.2024 took note of the rival contentions raised and held that the directions issued and/or the orders dated 21.11.2014 and 17.05.2022 passed by this court had not been complied with and contemnors had wilfully disobeyed them. However, the contemnors were extended olive branch to purge in the contempt and as such were called upon to file compliance report within six (6) weeks keeping in mind the observations made therein and it was made clear, failure to comply, the Commissioner, BBMP and the Competent Authority for issuance of Transferable Development Rights (“TDR”) should appear in person before this Court, so as to enable this Court to pass further orders. The contemnors were also mulcted with costs and were directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to each of the complainants (i.e., contempt petitioners) towards cost of the contempt proceedings. However, CP No. 578 of 2022, came to be dismissed by granting liberty to the complainant to pursue their grievance before the competent authority for issuance of DRC’s/TDR’s on resolution of the inter-se dispute and also holding that successful party to said dispute would be entitled to receive DRC’s/TDR’s as already ordered by this Court.
5. Learned Advocates appearing for both the parties in CP No.578 of 2022 and other connected matters asserted their respective contentions raised in their pleadings. Having regard to the order passed by this court on 10.12.2024, we notice that CP No.578 of 2022 has already been disposed of vide order of even date, and hence, no further order requires to be passed in the said Petition.
6. Pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 10.12.2024, the affidavit of Mr. Jairam, Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority (“BDA”) dated 12.02.2025 came to be filed enclosing therewith the TDR’s/DRC’s which was cancelled and subsequently a new provisional acceptance order came to be issued on 01.02.2025 in the name of successor in interest of Sri Jaya Chamarajendra Wad
