Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 40188 (KAR)

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA v. SRI. VIJAY KUMAR S BHANSALI

CRL.CCC/4/2026 · 2026-09-18

Anu Sivaraman, T P Vivekananda

Contempt Petitionbody2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.VIVEKANANDA CRIMINAL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.4 OF 2026 BETWEEN: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR GENERAL BENGALURU 560 001 …COMPLAINANT (BY SRI. B.N.JAGADEESHA, SPP-1 A/W SMT. NAVYA SHREE T.G., ADV-SUO MOTO/ COMPLAINANT) AND: 1. SRI. VIJAY KUMAR S BHANSALI AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS S/O SRI. SAKAL CHAND BHANSALI R/AT NO.4, 1ST FLOOR MATRU KRUPA APARTMENT 4TH CROSS N.S. IYENGAR STREET SHESHADRIPURAM BENGALURU 560 020 2. SRI. BHAVAESH KUMAR AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS S/O SRI. DINESH KUMAR R./AT NO.66 SHANKESHWAR VILLA Digitally signed by PAVITHRA N Location: High Court of Karnataka 2 V.V. PURAM BASAVANAGUDI BENGLAURU 560 004 3. SRI. MAHAVEER KUMAR AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS S/O SRI. JUGRAJ JAIN R/AT NO.3 2ND FLOOR MAKALLPPA OLANE NAGARTHPET CROSS BENGALURU 560 002 4. SMT. SUSHEELA BAI AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS W/O SRI. VIJAY KUMAR S BHANASALI R/AT MATHRU KRUPA APARTMENT 4TH CROSS N.S. IYENGAR STREET SHESHADRIPURAM BENGALURU 560 020 5. SRI. MAHENDRA KUMAR AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS S/O SRI. JUGRAJ JAIN R.AT NO.3 3RD FLOOR MAKLLAPPA LANE NAGARATHPET CROSS BENGALURU 560 002 6. SMT. PRAVEENA JAIN W/O MAHENDRA KUMAR R/AT NO.03 3RD FLOOR MAKALPPA LANE NAGARATHPET CROSS BENGALURU 560 002 3 7. SRI. ARVIND BHANSALI AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS S/O SRI. KAILASH BHANSALI R/AT NO.16 FLAT NO.202 M.M.V ROAD V.V.PURAM VASAVI TEMPLE ROAD CROSS BENGALURU 560 004 8. SMT. SEEMA BHANSALI AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS W/O SRI. ARVIND BHANSALI R.AT NO.16 FLAT NO.202 M.M.V ROAD V.V. PURAM VASAVI TEMPLE ROAD CROSS BENGALURU 560 004 9. SRI. SOHANLAL AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS S/O LATE MUNNILALJI R/AT NO.101 1ST FLOOR COMFORT CASTLE OPP. METLIFE INSURANCE COMPANY V.V.PURAM BENGALURU 560 004 10. SRI. JUGRAJ AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS S/O SRI. RIKAB CHAND R/AT NO.920-921 NAGARTHPET OTC ROAD BENGLAURU 560 002 11. SMT. MEENA DEVI AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS 4 W/O SRI. PAWAN RAJ R.AT NO.18/201 2ND FLOOR MADRASAB LANE MANAVATHIPET CHICKPET BENGALURU 560 053 12. SRI. PAWAN RAJ AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O SRI. DESH RAJ R/AT NO.18/201 2ND FLOOR MADRASAB LANE MANAVATHIPET CHICKPET BENGALURU 560 053 13. SMT. HEMA JAIN AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS W/O SRI. CHAMPALAL R/AT NO.274 3RD FLOOR AKKAMAHADEVI MAIN ROAD AKKIPET CHICKPET BENGLAURU 560 053 14. SMT. BHARATHI AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS W/O SRI. MAHAVEER KUMAR R.AT NO.3 2ND FLOOR MAKKALLAPPA LANE NAGARTHPET CROSS BENGLAURU 560 002 5 15. M/S JINESHWAR CONSTRUCTION LLP NO.7 AND 7B GROUND FLOOR SAMPOORNA CHAMBERS NO.13, VASAVI TEMPLE STREET V.V.PURAM BANGALORE 560 004 A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP FIRM REP. BY ITS DESIGNATED PARTNERS A) BHAVESH KUMAR B) ANKT KUMAR JAIN 16. SRI. GURUPRASAD KALKURA STRUCTURAL ENGINEER NO.284 4TH CROSS D GROUP LAYOUT NAGARABHAVI BANGALORE-560 091 17. SRI. ANKIT KUMAR JAIN PARTNER JINESHWAR CONSTRUCTION LLP GF-71 AND 7B NO.13 SAMPURNA CHAMBERS VASAVI TEMPLE ROAD V.V. PURAM BANGALORE - 560 004 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V. LAKSHMINARAYANA, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. CHANDPASHA, ADV. FOR A1 & A4; SRI. SHYAM SUNDAR, SR. COUNSEL FOR SMT. VANDANA P.L., ADV. FOR A5 TO A8; SRI. H.B.RUDRESH, ADV. FOR A16; SRI. R.ANIL KUMAR, ADV. FOR A3, A9, A10, A13 & A14; 6 SRI. P.D.SURANA, ADV. FOR A2, A11, A12, A15 & A17) THIS CRL.CCC IS FILED U/S 15 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 R/W ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO INITIATE CRIMINAL CONTEMPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS (SUO-MOTU) AGAINST THE ACCUSED HEREIN- NAMELY- 1. SRI.VIJAYKUMAR S BANSALI, 2. SRI.BHAVESH KUMAR, 3. SRI.MAHAVEER KUMAR, 4. SMT.SUSHEELA BAI, 5. SRI.MAHENDRA KUMAR, 6.SMT.PRAVEEN JAIN, 7. SRI.ARVIND BHANSALI, 8. SMT.SEEMA BHANSALI, 9. SRI.SOHANLAL, 10. SRI.JUGRAJ, 11. SMT.MEENA DEVI, 12. SRI.PAWAN RAJ, 13.SMT.HEMA JAIN, 14. SMT.BHARATHI, 15. M/S JINESHWAR CONSTRUCTION LLP, A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP FIRM, REP. BY ITS DESIGNATED PARTNERS A) BHAVESH KUMAR B) ANKT KUMAR JAIN, 16. SRI.GURUPRASAD KALKURA, 17. SRI.ANKIT KUMAR JAIN, UNDER THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 ON THE BASIS OF ORDER DATED 27.11.2023 IN WP NO.21361/2022 AND TO PUNISH THEM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THIS CRL.CCC HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 03.09.2026 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, ANU SIVARAMAN J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.VIVEKANANDA 7 CAV JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN) This Criminal Contempt of Court Case is filed suo-moto on the basis of the order dated 27.11.2023 passed in W.P. No.21361/2022. 2. Heard the learned State Public Prosecutor appearing for the complainant and learned Senior counsel appearing for the accused Nos.1 & 4, 5 to 8 and learned counsel for other accused. 3. We have also perused the affidavits of unconditional apology submitted by accused No.1 to 15 and 17. The apology is unconditional in nature. The accused state that it is tendered without any justification, defence or qualification whatsoever. Further, the accused undertake to strictly abide by and comply with all orders, directions and processes of the Court in the future. 4. Since, the accused are purging the contempt, we are of the opinion that the unconditional apology can be accepted however, on terms. 5. Accused No.16 is the Structural Engineer and in the fitness of things and in view of acceptance of apology of other accused, we do not propose to continue the proceedings against accused No.16. A cost of Rs.10,000/- each to be paid by accused No.1 to 15 and 17 to the 8 Karnataka State Victim Compensation and Rehabilitation Fund maintained by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. Accepting the unconditional apology tendered by accused No.1 to 15 and 17 and on condition of payment of cots of Rs.10,000/- each, the Contempt of Court Case is closed. If the costs are not paid, within a period of three weeks, the learned SPP can seek for revival of the present Contempt of Court Case as against the defaulters. It is made clear that the accused shall abide by the undertaking given before this Court. Notice issued shall stand discharged. Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/- (T.P.VIVEKANANDA) JUDGE cp*/RAK