IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
E.S.Indiresh, J.
K. Somanath Nayak – Appellant
Versus
D. Veerendra Heggade – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 7692 of 2022 (GM-CPC)
Decided On : 05-05-2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the case and parties involved. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. court's observations on the procedural aspects and principles of law. (Para 3 , 4 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 26) |
| 3. arguments presented by the petitioner against the trial court's award of compensation. (Para 5 , 6 , 10 , 11 , 14 , 16 , 17 , 19) |
| 4. ratio decidendi surrounding disobedience of court orders. (Para 9 , 12 , 40 , 72 , 76 , 80) |
| 5. final conclusion and orders of the court. (Para 70 , 75 , 78) |
JUDGMENT/ORDER
E.S.INDIRESH, J. - This Writ Petition is filed assailing the order dtd. 22/3/2022 passed in MA No.8 of 2021 by Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Belthangady dismissing the appeal and confirming the order dtd. 8/6/2021 passed in Civil Miscellaneous Petition No.3 of 2015 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Belthangady (hereinafter referred to as "the trial Court") allowing application IA.I filed under Order XXXIX Rule 2A read with Sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure in Original Suit No.226 of 2013 before the trial Court.
FACTS OF THE CASE
2. The relevant facts for adjudication of this Writ Petition are that, the respondent herein is the plaintiff in Original Suit No.226 of 2013 on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC, Belthangady, against the defendant No.6/petitioner herein, seeking relief of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining defendants and their agents claiming through them, from making or publishing any imputations / statement /allegations /opinions/News, either in oral, written, electronic or print form/media or any other form of communication/publication, which would directly or indirectly or in any other way, undermine/lower/damage/harm or tend to undermine /lower /damage/harm the reputation of the plaintiff, his family or Sri Khestra Dharmasthala, popularly known as Dharmasthala, its temple, Institution and their Management Committee. In the aforesaid suit, plaintiff filed application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking temporary injunction restraining the defendants and their agents claiming through them from making or publishing any imputations/statement/allegations/opinions/news, either oral, written, electronic or print form/media or any other form of communication/publication, which would directly, indirectly or in any other way, undermine/lower/damage/harm or tend to undermine/lower/damage/harm the reputation of the plaintiff, his family or Sri Khestra Dharmasthala, its temple, Institution and their Management Committee. The trial Court, by order dtd. 5/11/2013 granted ad-interim temporary injunction as sought for in IA.I filed by the plaintiff. Thereafter, the case was listed before the trial Court on several dates. In the meanwhile, the plaintiff has filed application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A read with Sec. 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, contending that defendant No.6/petitioner herein is guilty of committing disobedience of the injunction order dtd. 5/11/2013 and accordingly, sought for attachment of properties of the defendant No.6 and to detain the defendant No.6 in Civil Prison for disobedience of interim injunction order dtd. 5/11/2013 (Annexure-C). The said application was contested by the defendant No.6/petitioner herein by filing objection as per Annexure-D. Parties to the suit tendered evidence. The trial Court, after considering material on record, by impugned order dtd. 8/6/2021 allowed Civil Miscellaneous Petition No.3 of 2015 with costs. The said order passed by the trial Court was challenged by the defendant No.6/petitioner herein in MA No.8 of 2021 before the First Appellate Court, and the said appeal was contested by the plaintiff/respondent herein. The First Appellate Court, after considering the material on record, by its order dtd. 22/3/2022, dismissed the appeal and as such, confirmed the order dtd. 8/6/2021 in Civil Miscellaneous Petition No.3 of 2015. Feeling aggrieved by the same, defendant No.6 has presented
Eastern Trust Company vs. Makenzie Mann and Co. Limited
Ahmedabad Mfg. and Calico Ptg. Co. Ltd. vs. Ramtahel Ramamand and Ors.
Aligarh Municipal Board and Others vs. Ekka Tonga Mazdoor Union and Ors.
Arjun Singh vs. Mohindra Kumar and Others
Arjun Singh vs. Mohindra Kumar
Babhutmal Raichand Oswal vs. Laxmibai R. Tarte and Anr.
Bengal Escise Licensees Association vs. Raghabendra Singh and Ors.
Century Flour Mills vs. S. Suppaiah and Ors.
Chhotu Ram vs. Urvashi Gulati and Ors.
D.M. Samyulla vs. Commissioner, Corporation of the City of Bangalore and Others
Delhi Development Authority vs. Skipper Construction Co.
Dr. Bimal Chandra Sen vs. Mrs. Kamla Mathur
Estralla Rubber vs. Dass Estate (P) Ltd.
Food Corporation of India vs. Sukh Deo Prasad
Jaipur Mineral Development Syndicate vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi
Jaisingh and Others vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Another
Jyoti Limited vs. Smt. Kanwaljit Kaur Bhasin and Anr.
K.K. Velusamy vs. N. Palanisamy
Kochira Krishnan vs. Joseph Desouza
Kochira Krishnan vs. Joseph Desouza
M.B. Sanghi vs. High Court of Punjab and Haryana
M.Y. Shareaf vs. Honble Judges of the High Court of Nagpur
Manoharlal Chopra vs. Seth Hiralal
Mohd. Yunus vs. Mohd. Mustqaim and Others
Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund vs. Kartick Das
National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences vs. C.Parameshwra
Prakash vs. State of Karnataka
Radheshyam and Another vs. Chhabinath and Others
Ramkarandas Radhavallabh vs. Bhagwandas Dwarkadas
Ramrameshwarai Devi and Others vs. Nirmala Devi and Others
Ran Chand and Sons Sugar Mills (P) Ltd. vs. Kanhay Lal
Ratan Narain Mulla vs. Chief Secretary, Government of U.P. and Ors.
Rudraiha vs. State of Karnataka and Ors.
S. Abdul Kari vs. M.K. Prakash
Smt. Indu Tewari vs. Ram Bahadur Chaudhari and Ors.
Smt. Pushpaben and Another vs. Narandas vs. Badiani and Another
Smt. Savitri Devi vs. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Gorakhpur and Others
Sri Subhod Gopal Bose vs. Dahnia Jain And Co. Ltd.
STATE OF BIHAR vs. RANI SONABATI KUMARI
State of Bihar vs. Rani Sonabati Kumari
Sujit Pal vs. Prabir Kumar Sun
Surya Vadanan vs. State Of Tamil Nadu
Sushil Mittal and Another vs. R D Bhardwaj and Another
T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad through the Amicus Curiae vs. Ashok Khot & Anr.
Tayabbhai M. Bagasarwalla and Anr. vs. Hind Rubber Industries Pvt. Ltd and Others
Thakorlal Parshottamdas vs. Chandulal Chunilal
The Newabganj Sugar Mills Co.Ltd. vs. Union of India
A party cannot disregard an interim injunction based on claims of jurisdiction; violation may lead to contempt punishment, maintaining the authority of court orders.
Power to order civil imprisonment under Order XXXIX Rule 2A curtails an individual's fundamental right, albeit through a process of law.
Order 39 Rule 2A CPC allows proceedings against non-parties/strangers who aid/abet injunction breach with knowledge; trial court determines facts like knowledge and disobedience; no bar to summoning ....
Contempt jurisdiction should be reserved for matters that bring the administration of justice into contempt or unduly weaken it, and parties should not skip over effective alternative remedies and re....
Order 39 Rule 2A CPC requires strict proof of willful disobedience of injunction as penal provision; High Court under Article 227 refrains from reappreciating evidence absent perversity or grave inju....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.