Chaduranga Kantharaj Urs vs S. V. Ranganath

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(SC) 899

M. M. SUNDRESH, ARAVIND KUMAR
Chaduranga Kantharaj Urs – Appellant
Versus
S. V. Ranganath – Respondent

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

Table of Content
1. alleged willful disobedience of court orders. (Para 1)
2. contemptors claim drc/tdr's should not be issued. (Para 2 , 12)
3. court's examination of compliance with earlier orders. (Para 3 , 4 , 10 , 11 , 13)
4. directions for rectification and compliance established. (Para 5 , 6 , 9 , 14)
5. petitions disposed of with orders for compliance. (Para 8 , 15)

JUDGMENT :

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 rea

Click Here to Read the rest of this document