- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:4007-DB CCC No. 202 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 202 OF 2023 BETWEEN: SRI. B.N. SUBRAMANI S/O. B.S. NARAYANA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT NO.4/3, 1ST MAIN, RAGHAVENDRA MUTT ROAD, HOSAKEREHALLI, BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE, BENGALURU-560 085. …COMPLAINANT (BY SRI. ASHWIN KUMAR H., ADVOCATE) AND: RAMEGOWDA T., S/O LATE DASEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/AT NO.25, AKSHAYA GRUHALAKSHMI LAYOUT, IST STAGE, BASAVESHWARANAGARA, BENGALURU-560 079 …ACCUSED THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, R/W ARTICLE 215 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO FIND THE ACCUSED Digitally signed by MOUNESHWARAPPA NAGARATHNA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:4007-DB CCC No. 202 of 2023 GUILTY OF COMMISSION OF CONTEMPT OF ORDERS OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT DATED 23.1.2017 PASSED IN THE RFA 912/2015 AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO CONVICT THE ACCUSED FOR THE SAME AND CONSEQUENTLY SENTENCE THE ACCUSED FOR IMPRISONMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR) This contempt proceedings has been initiated by the complainant for seeking intervention on the premises that the respondent / accused in the rank in this matter wilfully disobeyed the orders passed by the Learned Single Judge in RFA No.912/2015, dated 23.01.2017. 2. Whereas the learned counsel Sri.Ashwin Kumar.H, for the complainant who is on record, even after accommodating the counsel to cure the defects on the curial law, considerably, but neither the counsel nor the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:4007-DB CCC No. 202 of 2023 complainant who is on record came forward for curing the defects on curial law to persuade this matter in accordance with law either of the respondent / accused. 3. In this contempt proceeding, office note reveals that on calculation of period of delay as 1477 days and more so excluding the period during the COVID situation, it is the period of 715 days that is in the suo-moto writ petition (Civil No.3/2020). In respect of the miscellaneous application No.21/2022 was initiated before the Hon'ble Apex Court and the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall be stand excluded for the purpose of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special law in respect of all judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings and accordingly the scrutiny branch has scrutinised the issues in respect of the limitation filed and even for excluding the aforesaid period in pursuance of the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court of India and remaining only for 762 days and there is a delay for initiation of this contempt proceedings against the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:4007-DB CCC No. 202 of 2023 respondent / accused and also it is indicating that it is barred by limitation and therefore it is deem it appropriate for referring the provision of Section - 20 of the Contempt Of Courts Act, 1971 that no courts shall initiate any proceedings of contempt, either on its motion or otherwise, after the expiry of the period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed, i.e., the provisions of Contempt Of Courts Act of 1971. 4. Similar issue has been addressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a judgment of one S.Tirupathi Rao vs M Lingamaiah And Others, reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 1764, wherein in para - 53, it has been made observation that - Reverting to the point of limitation, even in case of a petition disclosing facts constituting contempt, which is civil in nature, the petitioner cannot choose a time convenient to him to approach the Court. The statute refers to a specific time limit of one year from the date of alleged contempt for - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:4007-DB CCC No. 202 of 2023 proceedings to be initiated; meaning thereby, as laid down in Pallav Sheth (supra), that the action should be brought within a year, and not beyond, irrespective of when the proceedings to punish for contempt are actually initiated by the high court. Therefore, keeping in view the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and more so keeping in view the specific provision of Section-20 the Contempt Of Courts Act 1971, it is deem appropriate to hold that the contempt proceedings does not survive for consideration. Consequently, this contempt proceedings are hereby dropped. Sd/- (K.SOMASHEKAR) JUDGE Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE JJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9 CT:SNN