M/S A M CONSTRUCTIONS v. SMT GAYATHRI
Court: High Court of Karnataka
Bench: ABHAY SHREENIWAS OKA (CJ),S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Karnataka judgment dated 2020-12-23. M/S A M CONSTRUCTIONS v. SMT GAYATHRI. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU RD DATED THIS THE 23 DAY OF DECEMBER, 2020 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY C. C. C. NO. 463 OF 2020 (CIVIL) BETWEEN: M/S A. M CONSTRUCTIONS A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO. 34 INDIRA AKASH APARTMENT ST RD 21 MAIN, 3 D CROSS, ND BRM 2 STAGE BANGALORE – 560076. REP. BY ITS PARTNERS: MR MOHAMMED ARIF ALI S/O MOHAMMED RAZACK ALI AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS. MR N MOHAN S/O LATE N NAGABHUSHANAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS. … COMPLAINANT (BY SHRI SHARATH GOWDA G. B, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT GAYATHRI D/O VIJAYALAKSHMI AGED 36 YEARS. 2. SMT SARASWATHI D/O LATE R SATHYA BHEEMA RAO AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS. 3. SRI KRISHNA S/O LATE R SATHYA BHEEMA RAO. 4. SRI SRINIVAS S/O LATE R SATHYA BHEEMA RAO AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS. ALL THE ABOVE RESIDING AT NO. 220 TH 12 MAIN, LAKKASANDRA EXTENSION WILSON GARDEN, BANGALORE - 560030. … ACCUSED (BY SHRI VENUGOPAL M. S, AGA FOR A-1 TO A-4) --- THIS C. C.
C. IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 READ WITH ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO INITIATE PENAL ACTION AGAINST THE ACCUSED PERSONS/RESPONDENTS FOR THE DELIBERATE CONTEMPT OF THE ORDER DATED 10. 02. 2020 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT AS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE A PASSED IN WRIT PETITION No. 54653/2017 AND WP No. 55791/2017 AND ETC. THIS C. C. C. COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER The learned counsel appearing for the complainant states that the accused have handed over possession of the premises to the complainant yesterday in the afternoon. The possession has been handed over in terms of the undertaking given by the respondents-accused to the Court th and in terms of the order dated 10 February, 2020. 2. Thus, there is a compliance with the undertaking and the order of this Court.
The compliance has been made without prejudice to the right of the complainants to prosecute the pending Special Leave Petition. Hence, it is not necessary to initiate any action under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 3. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of. Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE vgh*
Source: High Court of Karnataka. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.