Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 38636 (KAR)

SRI S R RAVI KUMAR v. SRI. M.B NAGAKUMAR

CCC/637/2025 · 2026-09-03

Jayant Banerji, Rajesh Rai K

Contempt Petitionbody2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010367532025 NC: 2026:KHC:47951-DB CCC No. 637 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 637 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SRI.S.R.RAVI KUMAR S/O LATE S.RAMARAO, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.51/A, 1ST CROSS, JAYALAXMIPURAM, MYSURU-570 012. …COMPLAINANT [BY SRI.MILASH ARROL NORONHA, ADVOCATE (VC)] AND: SRI.M.B.NAGAKUMAR, S/O LATE M.N.BASAVARAJAIAH, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, PROPRIETOR OF M/S PREMIER PROPERTIES, RESIDING AT NO.2270/1, CHITTARANJAN MAHAL, VINOBHA ROAD, JAYALAKSHMIPURAM, MYSORE-570 012. …ACCUSED (BY SRI.JAYARAJ D.S., ADVOCATE) THIS CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, R/W ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA BY THE COMPLAINANT, PRAYING TO INITIATE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ALLEGED CONTEMNOR/ACCUSED FOR WILLFULLY AND Digitally signed by K S RENUKAMBA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010367532025 NC: 2026:KHC:47951-DB CCC No. 637 of 2025 DELIBERATELY DISOBEYING THE DIRECTION OF THIS HON’BLE COURT VIDE JUDGMENT DATED 01.04.2025 PASSED IN W.P NO.7281/2024(GM-CON) IN ANNEXURE-A THEREBY UPHOLDING THE DIGNITY AND MAJESTY OF LAW BY CAUSING EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON’BLE COURT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI) Heard the learned counsel for the complainant and learned counsel appearing for the accused. 2. This petition is filed seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against the accused for willful and deliberate disobedience of the direction of this Court in the Judgment dated 01.04.2025 passed in Writ Petition No.7281/2024. The operative part of the order, contempt of which is alleged by the complainant is as follows: "...... In the above circumstances, this petition being devoid of merits, is liable to be and accordingly dismissed with a cost of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh) only, payable to the 1st respondent-Consumer, within four weeks, failing which he shall be liable to pay additional sum of Rs.500/- per day for the first month and Rs.1,000/- per day for the period next following. Petitioner is warned of contempt action should he fail to comply with this order." - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010367532025 NC: 2026:KHC:47951-DB CCC No. 637 of 2025 3. It is stated by the learned counsel that only an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- has been paid but the additional sum of Rs.500/- per day for the first month and Rs.1,000/- per day for the period next following has not been paid. 4. Learned counsel for the accused today has filed a memo in Court along with an order of the Supreme Court dated 08.05.2026 which reflects that the order passed by the Division Bench of the Writ Court on 01.04.2025 was challenged before the Supreme Court in SLP(C) No.6896/2026. By an order of 13.02.2026, the Supreme Court directed that subject to deposit of the half of the amount of Rs.500/- per day for the first month and Rs.1,000/- per day thereafter till compliance within a period of four weeks from today, the execution of warrant would remain stayed. 5. Evidently, the matter arose out of a complaint filed under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which culminated in a judgment before the State Commission on 04.04.2022, whereby the complaint was allowed with a direction to the accused as well as the complainant to refund the amount of Rs.44,58,001/- with interest at 12% per annum - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010367532025 NC: 2026:KHC:47951-DB CCC No. 637 of 2025 from the date of receiving the amount from the first respondent therein till realization. A further amount of Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation and Rs.25,000/- towards cost of litigation was also awarded. 6. The order of the State Commission was unsuccessfully challenged before the National Commission. Since the entire award was not satisfied, an Execution Case No.2/2023 was filed before the State Commission seeking execution of the judgment dated 04.04.2022 of the State Commission. The order dated 03.07.2023 passed by the State Commission issuing a non-bailable warrant was challenged under Writ Petition No.7281/2024, which came to be dismissed on 01.04.2025 with the direction as quoted above. 7. Thereafter, before the Supreme Court, an amount of Rs.1,44,000/- was deposited by the accused in the Registry of that Court. The SLP was disposed of on 08.05.2026 in the following terms: "6. In view of aforesaid, the Special Leave Petition is disposed of by directing the parties to appear before the State Commission in E.C.No.2 of 2023 on 15.06.2026. Subject to the petitioner undertaking to appear before the State Commission on that date and thereafter as directed, the non-bailable warrant shall - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010367532025 NC: 2026:KHC:47951-DB CCC No. 637 of 2025 stand cancelled. The first respondent is permitted to withdraw the amount deposited by the petitioner pursuant to the order dated 13.02.2026 that is lying in deposit alongwith accrued interest. The first respondent shall file an affidavit before the State Commission indicating the amount received by him as aforesaid. The said amount shall be taken into consideration as part satisfaction of the order passed by the State Commission in C.C.No.465 of 2017 as well as the order dated 01.04.2025 passed by the High Court in W.P.No.7281 of 2024. The State Commission shall endeavor to decide the execution petition within a period of four months from 15.06.2026. It is clarified that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the proceedings and the same shall be decided uninfluenced by any observations made in this order." 8. In view of the aforesaid direction of the Supreme Court made in the aforesaid SLP, the cause for preferring this contempt would not survive. The contempt petition is therefore consigned. Sd/- (JAYANT BANERJI) JUDGE Sd/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE KG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8