Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 89927 (KAR)

R.KRISHNASAMY v. SRI. SIDHARTH MOHANTI

CCC/1154/2024 · 2025-12-18

Anu Sivaraman, Vijaykumar A Patil

Contempt Petitionbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54450-DB C.C.C. No.1154/2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.1154/2024 BETWEEN: R. KRISHNASAMY AGED ABUT 65 YEARS NO.47, 4TH MAIN, 1ST CROSS DOMLUR LAYOUT BANGALROE 560071. …COMPLAINANT (BY SRI. P. RAVI SHANKAR, ADV.,) AND: 1. SRI. SIDHARTH MOHANTI CHAIRMAN, THE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA YOGAKSHEMA, JEEVAN BHIMA MARG CENTRAL OFFICE, P B NO 19953 MUMBAI- 400021. 2. SRI. PUNEET KUMAR THE ZONAL MANAGER LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA SOUTH CENTRAL ZONAL OFFICE JEEVAN BHAGYA SAIFABAD HYDERABAD 500063. Digitally signed by ARSHIFA BAHAR KHANAM Location: High Court Of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54450-DB C.C.C. No.1154/2024 3. SRI. C. RAJASEKHAR THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER LIC OF INDIA, DIVISIONAL OFFICE II INDIRA NAGAR BENGALURU 560002. 4. SRI. DAKSHINAMURTHY THE SENIOR BRANCH MANAGER LIC OF INDIA CIVIL STATION EAST BRANCH M.G. ROAD, BENGALURU 560001. …ACCUSED (BY SRI. SHIVAYOGI B. HALLUR, ADV., FOR A1 TO A4) THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, R/W SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 PRAYING TO PUNISH FOR NON IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WRIT PETITION NO.12754/2021 (GM-RES) DATED 28.07.2023. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54450-DB C.C.C. No.1154/2024 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) This contempt petition is filed alleging willful disobedience of the order dated 28.07.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.12754/2021. The operative portion of the order reads as under: "3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this court is inclined to grant limited indulgence in the matter as under inasmuch as the petitioner wanted to examine three witnesses on his behalf and that opportunity was unjustifiably denied. Ordinarily in matters relating to termination of agency and forfeiture of renewal commission, oral evidence as of necessity needs to be led in. Added, the very violation of principles of natural justice is a prejudice, and actual prejudice need not be demonstrated vide S.L.KAPOOR vs. JAGMOHAN, AIR 1981 SC 136. No heavens would have fallen down had the petitioner been given the opportunity of producing his witnesses. That having not happened, there is an error apparent on the face of the impugned orders and therefore they are liable to be invalidated; the matter needs to be remanded for consideration afresh at the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54450-DB C.C.C. No.1154/2024 hands of original authority who shall give full opportunity to the petitioner. In the above circumstances, this writ petition succeeds; a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned orders and also the Memorial dated 17.03.2021 vide Annexures-F, G & H respectively. Remand to be decided within a period of four months. All contentions are kept open." 2. The respondents entered appearance. The accused Nos.1 and 2 filed compliance affidavits dated 10.12.2025. The said affidavits indicate that after remand by the learned Single Judge, the Authority has taken a decision to terminate the agency of the complainant and being aggrieved by such an action, the complainant has filed an appeal which came to be rejected on 31.03.2024. 3. In view of the subsequent events, we are of the considered view that the direction of the learned Single Judge with regard to providing an opportunity to the complainant has been complied and after remand, necessary order has also been passed. Therefore, nothing more survives to be considered in the contempt petition. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54450-DB C.C.C. No.1154/2024 4. Accordingly, the contempt proceedings are dropped. All the contentions of the parties are kept open to be adjudicated in an appropriate forum. Notice issued to the accused stands discharged. Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE RV List No.: 3 Sl No.: 34