High CourtsDivision Bench(2026) 09 KAR CK 0678

Sri. R. Sadananda vs Mr. Manivannan P. & Anr.

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru Bench · Decided on 1 September 2026

HON’BLE JUDGES
Jayant Banerji, J · T.M.Nadaf, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 55 OF 2026

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

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

Loading membership options…

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

7 paragraphs · 306 words

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI)

An affidavit has been filed today on behalf of the accused in which the deponent is Vishnu Vardhana Reddy T.S, working as the Deputy Secretary-3 in the Bangalore Development Authority. Paragraph No.5 of this affidavit reads as follows:

"I submit the case of the complainant had to be placed before the alternative site committee and thereafter the report from the engineering section with regard to the exact measurement of the site had to be ascertained. Thereafter the verification of any pending litigations had to be ascertained from the law section. After verifying the process of the allotment had to be completed. I submit that after the allotment letter was issued to the complainant, the complainant had to surrender the original documents of site bearing No.661 situated in Arkavathy Layout to the Bangalore Development Authority. It is only after the surrender of the documents, the sale deed in respect of site bearing No.B1-SL-237."

2.

The affidavit which is filed in Court is taken on record. However, a memo has been filed today by the advocate for the complainant in which it is stated as follows:

"The complainant submits that, in compliance with the order dated 05.02.2025 passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in WA No.954 of 2025 (BDA), the accused executed the conveyance deed in favour of the complainant on 17.04.2026, thereby complying with the directions issued by this Hon'ble Court.

In view of the above, the contempt petition does not survive for further consideration. It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to drop the contempt proceedings, in the interest of justice and equity."

3.

The memo is accepted. In the view of the admitted case that the directions of the writ Court have been complied with, this contempt petition is consigned.