High CourtsDivision Bench(2012) 09 KAR CK 0149

M/s VRL Logistics Ltd. vs Sri Pradeep Singh Kharola, I.A.S. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Vanijye Therige Karyalaya, I Main, Gandhinagar, Bangalore-560001

Karnataka High Court · Decided on 7 September 2012

HON’BLE JUDGES
N.K. Patil, J · B.V. Pinto, J
CASE NUMBER
C.C.C. No. 3081 of 2012 and C.C.C. No. 3284 of 2012 (Civil)

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 336 words
1.

These Contempt petitions are filed under Article 215 of the Constitution of India R/w. Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 and Rule 3(II) of the Contempt Rules, praying to punish the accused 1 to 9 for contempt of the orders of this Hon''ble Court dated 4th November 2011 passed in Writ Petition Nos. 66271-66272/2012 vide Annexure-A. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for accused has filed a memo dated 6th September 2012. The statements made in the said memo are placed on record and the same reads thus:

It is humbly submitted that aforesaid C.C.C. 3081/2012 and 3284/2012 are posted before this Hon''ble Court on 23.08.2012 and this Hon''ble Court directed the accused/respondent to comply with the order passed in the Writ Petition within a period of two weeks. As per the direction of this Hon''ble Court., the order was complied on 03.09.2012 and the amount is refunded to the complainant on 05.09.2012. The copy of the refund proceedings dated 03.09.2012 and acknowledgement given by the complainant dated 05.09.2012 is herewith produced along with this memo for kind perusal of this Hon''ble Court, in the interest of justice and equity.

2.

She further submits that in the light of the statements made in the memo dated 6th September 2012 and after perusal of the order dated 3rd September 2012 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes annexed to the said memo, the order of the learned Single Judge is complied with and therefore, the instant contempt petition may be dropped.

3.

However, Learned Counsel appearing for complainant submits that the order has been partially complied with. In the light of the submission of Learned Counsel appearing for both parties and recording the statements made in the memo dated 6th September 2012, this contempt petition is dropped, reserving liberty to the complainant to redress its grievance before the jurisdictional competent authority or appropriate legal forum, as permissible, if the complainant is still not satisfied with the order passed by the authority.