R. SRINIVAS Vs. B. SAMBASHIVA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This complaint is filed under Section 15(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against the accused praying to punish the accused under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act.

(2.) The complainant in the complaint contended that the factory premises bearing No.C-212 consisting of six portions situated at 4th Cross, 1st Stage Peenya Industrial Estate, Peenya, Bengaluru, originally belonged to the accused. The accused had availed loan from State Bank of India. As he did not repay the loan amount, a suit was filed in O.S.No.10962 of 1994. The same was transferred to the Debts Recovery Tribunal and was re-numbered as O.A.No.861 of 1995. The accused contested the matter and the same was decreed in favour of the Bank. Thereafter, recovery proceedings was initiated against the accused and the property was brought for sale. The complainant has purchased the same in the public auction and sale certificate was issued and the sale was also confirmed. Thereafter, the complainant has filed H.R.C.No.51 of 2009 against one of the tenant, M/s. Vinayaka Enterprises and the same was allowed. The tenant filed HRRP No.210 of 2010 and the same was dismissed. The tenant did not vacate the premises and hence Execution Case No.936 of 2012 was filed before the Court of Small Causes. The complainant also filed five civil suits against other tenants. In the said suits, the accused filed impleading applications and the same was allowed. Being aggrieved by the same, the complainant preferred writ petitions and those writ petitions were allowed and the order of impleadment was set aside. The accused also filed objectors application in the Execution Case No.936 of 2012 and the same was dismissed. He filed R.F.A.No.115 of 2014 before the High Court against the order dated 6.1.2014 passed in Execution Case No.936 of 2012 dismissing the application filed under Order 21 Rules 97, 98, 99, 101 and 104 of Code of Civil Procedure. However, while dismissing the appeal, the Court passed an order that the same is subject to the result of O.S.No.2073 of 2012 filed by the accused since he had challenged the eviction order and also the order passed in HRRP No.210 of 2010.

(3.) The main contention of the complainant is that the accused has suffered the decree in the Debts Recovery Tribunal and the same was challenged before the High Court and the High Court also confirmed the same. Inspite he suffering the orders on the judicial side, he is coming in the way of the complainant taking the possession of the premises and taking recourse to legal proceedings to scuttle the process of law. The same amounts to abuse of the process of Court. Hence, the very acts of the accused amounts to criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act and hence he may be punished for the same.