Disobeying Court's Orders And Alienating Property For Paying Debts Not Ground To Seek Pardon In Contempt Proceedings: Karnataka High Court

The court has also given the accused an option to avoid imprisonment by depositing the entire sale consideration amount received by him in alienating the property which is pending consideration of the appeal, within two months, which would be subject to the result of the said appeal or in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one month.

The bench while convicting the accused rejected his contention that the said acts were for the bonafide reason to clear the old debts and it was necessary for the survival of their family members and accordingly, sought to drop the contempt proceedings.

In doing so the court placed reliance on Supreme Court judgement in the case of L.D. Jaikwal vs. State of U.P. [(1984) 3 SCC 405] wherein the court said “We cannot subscribe to the ‘slap-say sorry- and forget’ school of thought in administration of contempt jurisprudence.”

Following it the bench held “We hold that the so called apology is not an act of penitence, contrition or regret and the acceptance of such an apology in the case on hand would be allowing the contemnors to go away with impunity after committing gross contempt of Courts.”

The complainants Somanana and others had filed the contempt petition claiming that though an interim order was passed on 22-11-2012 by the High Court in appeal filed by them restraining accused not to alienate/encumber/create or otherwise discharge the suit schedule property pending disposal of the appeal.

Though the interim order was well within the knowledge of the accused-contemnor, he willfully disobeyed the interim order and has created third party rights by executing registered sale deed dated 07.04.2014 in favour of one Rajamma wife of H.M. Girish in respect of item No.4 and by executing a registered mortgage deed dated 07.03.2014 in favour of one B. Mahesh in respect of item No.1 of the suit schedule property.

Pursuant to the notice being issued the accused pleaded that he is the adopted son of T.M. Mahadevappa and his father late T.M. Mahadevappa had incurred heavy loans from various private persons and in order to reimburse the loan amount, they were forced to mortgage item No.1 and obtained some amount to clear the loan borrowed by them and further, in spite of mortgaging item No.1, the loans could not be cleared and hence, they sold item No.4 of the suit schedule property to the third party.

The bench on going through the records noted that “The accused-contemnor has categorically admitted in his cross-examination about non-obtaining of any permission from any Court for alienating the property in question. Thus, the defence taken by the accused-contemnor does not appear to be probable as normally, in such circumstances, if an interim order has been passed by the Court restraining the accused-contemnor from alienating or creating any third party rights which was very much within his knowledge, every efforts ought to have been made by the accused-contemnor to seek for modification or vacating or permission seeking to alienate the property in view of the constrained situation.”

It added “Having failed to do so as admitted by the accused-contemnor in his cross-examination, the said defence taken that the third party rights were created for bonafide reasons is not sustainable and mere fact that the accused-contemnor in the contempt petition had some explanation to offer, would not absolve him from the liability under the Act.”

Then it held “From the overall consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record and in light of a series of events, we hold that the accused-contemnor has disregarded and violated the interim order granted by this Court vide order dated 22.11.2012.”

Further the court opined that “Punishing the person for contempt of Court is indeed a drastic step and normally such action should not be taken. However, at the same time, it is not only power but the duty of the Court to uphold and maintain the dignity of the Courts and Majesty of the law which may call for such extreme steps. For proper administration of justice and to ensure the due compliance with the orders passed by the Courts, it is required to take a strict view under the Act and it should not hesitate in wielding the potent weapon of contempt.”

Accordingly it allowed the complaint and directed the Registrar (Judicial) to prepare a warrant of commitment and detention in respect of accused-contemnor as contemplated under Rule 16(1) of the High Court of Karnataka (Contempt of Court Proceedings) Rules, 1981 and take further action against the accused to undergo punishment imposed, if the amount is not deposited.

Case Title: Somanna & Others And Prakash

Case No: C.C.C. No.846/2017

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 44

Date of Order: 03-02-2023

Appearance: Advocate Divya Krishna for complainants; Advocate B.S. Nagaraj FOR A-2.