logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide

24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 Kar HC 424 print Preview print print
Court : High Court of Karnataka
Case No : Civil Contempt Petition No. 1385 of 2025 C/W Civil Contempt Petition No. 1386 of 2025
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
Parties : D. Nagaraj & Others Versus Shalma Iqabal, Principal Secretary, The State of Karnataka, Department of Animal Husbandry & Fisheries, Vikasa Soudha, Bangalore & Others
Appearing Advocates : For the Complainants: S.B. Mukkannappa, Advocate. For the Accused: S.H. Raghavendra, AGA.
Date of Judgment : 08-04-2026
Head Note :-
Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - Section 11 & Section 12 -

Comparative Citation:
2026 KHC 19374 DB,
Judgment :-

(Prayers: This CCC is filed under Sections 11 and 12 the Contempt of Court Act, 1971, by the complainant, Praying to initiate the contempt proceedings against the accused no.1 and 2 for having not Complied with the time bound directions issued by This Hon'ble Court by an order dated 24.04.2025 in WP No.2069/2021 C/W WP No.11098/2021 and Consequently punish the accused no.1 and 2.

This CCC is filed under Sections 11 and 12 the, Contempt of Court Act, 1971, by the complainant, Praying to initiate the contempt proceedings against the accused No.1 and 2 for having not Complied with the time bound directions issued by This Hon'ble Court by an order dated 24.04.2025 in WP No.2069/2021 C/W WP No.11098/2021 and Consequently punish the accused No.1 and 2 for Having not complied with the passed by this Hon'ble court.)

Oral Order:

Vibhu Bakhru, CJ.

1. The complainants have filed the present complaints alleging willful disobedience of the order dated 24.04.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.2069/2021 (S-KSAT) connected with Writ Petition No.11098/2021 (S-KSAT).

2. The learned counsel appearing for the accused submits that the State has preferred a Special Leave Petition against the said order, which is pending.

3. In view of the above, the present complaints are closed with liberty to the complainants to revive the same, subject to the outcome of the proceedings pending in the Supreme Court.

 
  CDJLawJournal