Shri. Honnappa Ramayya Naik vs. The State Of Karnataka
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Shri. Honnappa Ramayya Naik, filed a Civil Contempt Petition (CCC) against the State of Karnataka and Shri. Ravi D. Rampuri, Executive Engineer, for allegedly violating an order passed by the High Court on October 13, 2023, in W.P. No. 106344/2023. The contempt petition was filed under Section 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India. The core of the dispute appears to be related to the reimbursement of a GST amount. During the proceedings, an office objection was raised regarding the petition being filed beyond the period of limitation. The petitioner's counsel acknowledged this and sought to withdraw the contempt petition, requesting liberty to file a fresh representation for reimbursement of the GST amount from the respondent.
Held
The Court noted an office objection that the contempt petition was filed beyond the period of limitation. The petitioner's counsel accepted this position. Consequently, the petitioner sought to withdraw the contempt petition and requested liberty to file a fresh representation for reimbursement of the GST amount from the respondent. The Court held that such liberty to file a fresh representation for reimbursement could not be granted within a contempt petition. However, the Court found it appropriate to grant liberty to the petitioner to file an application before the learned Single Judge seeking an extension of time for compliance with the original order dated October 13, 2023. Accordingly, the contempt petition was disposed of as withdrawn, with the aforementioned liberty reserved for the petitioner.
Key Issues
1. Whether the contempt petition is barred by limitation under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971? The petitioner argued that while the contempt petition was filed beyond the period of limitation, they sought to withdraw it and requested liberty to file a fresh representation for reimbursement of the GST amount. The revenue or State did not record any specific arguments on this point, but the Court's order implies an acknowledgment of the limitation issue raised by the office. The Court had to decide whether to permit withdrawal with liberty to pursue the underlying GST reimbursement claim through a new representation, or if such liberty could be granted within the context of a contempt proceeding. The Court also implicitly considered whether the petitioner could seek an extension of time for compliance with the original order.
Sections Cited
Section 11, Section 12
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS)
Having regard to the office objection that the contempt petition has been filed beyond the period of limitation, learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant accepts the position that the contempt petition has been filed beyond the period of limitation. However, learned counsel has filed a memo seeking leave to withdraw the contempt petition while also seeking liberty to file a fresh representation for reimbursement of the GST amount from the respondent.
We are of the considered opinion that such liberty cannot be given in a contempt petition. However, liberty can be given to the petitioner to file an application before the learned Single Judge and seek extension of time for compliance. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8215-DB CCC No. 100165 of 2025
Accordingly, the contempt petition is disposed of as withdrawn while reserving liberty to the petitioner to file such an application before the learned Single Judge. (R.DEVDAS) JUDGE (K V ARAVIND) JUDGE
NAA CT: UMD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11
Reproduced from the public record of the Karnataka High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.