Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH
H.P.SANDESH, T.M.NADAF
Commissioner, City Municipal Corporation, Gandhi Chowk, Vijayapur – Appellant
Versus
Bijapur District Central Co-Operative Bank Limited, By Its CEO, Kizhakke Kottala Krishnan Unni Surendranathan, S/o. K. Krishnan Unni Menon – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
H.P. SANDESH, J.
The CCC No.200108/2025 and CCC No.200122/2025 are filed for non-compliance of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.202702/2015 connected with W.P.No.204497/2016 dated 07.12.2023 for civil disobedience vide Annexure-A and the appeals i.e., W.A.No.200207/2024, W.A.No.200239/2024, W.A.No.200241/2024 and W.A.No.200242/2024 are filed by respondent Nos.1 to 4 challenging the very same order questioning the order of possession in the event of no acquisition proceedings are taken.
2. The factual matrix of the case of the complainants before the learned Single Judge while seeking the relief of writ of mandamus and for a direction to the respondents to initiate the acquisition proceedings in respect of the petitioners properties which are more fully described in the said writ petitions that the petitioner in W.P.No.204497/2016 was the owner in possession and enjoyment of the property bearing CTS No.1126/1-C (1126/C). The complainant/petitioner claims in the writ petition that he had constructed three floor building (ground + two second floors) by investing lakhs of rupees and several business establishments wherein running the same in the said build
Law mandates lawful acquisition processes and due compensation for properties, highlighting the obligation to adhere to statutory timelines for notifications under the Right to Fair Compensation and ....
The doctrine of merger and waiver of earlier orders by subsequent legal actions.
(1) Discretion given to court in dealing with proceedings under Contempt of Courts Act is to be exercised for maintenance of court’s dignity and majesty of law.(2) Contempt of Court – Aggrieved party....
A clear and categorical court order must be complied with; ambiguity cannot excuse non-compliance, as established in contempt proceedings.
The appellant committed contempt by willfully disobeying a court order directing the deposit of compensation, emphasizing the imperative for compliance with judicial directives.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that willful disobedience of a court order, as defined in the Contempt of Courts Act, can lead to punishment under Section 12 of the Act.
Contempt proceedings cannot continue if the party is acting in accordance with the law and processing the land without delay.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
