- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20076-DB CCC No. 559 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 559 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. M/S. MANLEO FOODS PVT. LTD. REP. BY MR. G. SHUBHA KUMAR C/O GAANESHWARA M.S. AGED AROUND 35 YEARS NO.462, 11TH CROSS 7TH A MAIN ROAD, SECTOR A YELAHANKA NEW TOWN YELAHANAKA BANGALORE - 560 064 …COMPLAINANT (BY SRI V. MOHAN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. PRASHANTH PANDEY AUTHORIZED OFFICER CHIEF MANAGER CANARA BANK, ARM BRANCH-I 2ND FLOOR, SPENCER TOWER M.G. ROAD BANGALORE - 560 001 …ACCUSED (BY SRI SHETTY VIGNESH SHIVARAM, ADVOCATE) THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, PRAYING TO PUNISH THE ACCUSED BANK/CONTEMNOR FOR CIVIL CONTEMPT FOR Digitally signed by AMBIKA H B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20076-DB CCC No. 559 of 2025 WILLFULLY DISOBEYING THE ORDER DATED 13.01.2025 PASSED IN W.P. NO.34429/2024 (GM-RES) BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU IN ANNEXURE-A & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE) 1. The complainant has filed the present complaint alleging willful disobedience of the order 13.01.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.34429/2024 (GM-RES). The operative part of the said order reads as under: "3. Having regard to the interim orders passed on 19.1.2024 and in view of the prayer made in the writ petition regarding the Auction Sale Notice dated 26.11.2024 and the fact that the auction could not be held by the respondent-Bank, the writ petition stands disposed of directing the 1st respondent-Bank to consider the request made by the petitioners for refund of the amount deposited by the petitioners under OTS Scheme. 4. If the said amount is kept under No-lien Account and the petitioners have not fulfilled the conditions the 1st respondent-Bank will be duty bound to consider the representation given by the petitioners which includes the 2nd petitioner, who is the original borrower for refund of the amount deposited under OTS scheme. The same shall be considered as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order." - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20076-DB CCC No. 559 of 2025 2. The Bank has rejected the request for refund of the amount deposited in the non-lien account by letter dated 06.02.2025, a copy of which has been produced and marked as Annexure-R1 to the statement of objections filed by the accused Bank. 3. Since the order, the disobedience of which is alleged is confined to directing the Bank to consider the representation, which has been done, no proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is required to be initiated against the accused. 4. The complaint is, accordingly, closed. 5. We, however, clarify that this order would not preclude the complainant from agitating its grievance against the accused Bank in accordance with law. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE AHB, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5