M/S M Venkatarao Infra Structure vs. Tushar Giri Nath, Ias

Facts

The complainant, M/s M Venkatarrao Infrastructure Projects (P) Ltd, filed a Civil Contempt Petition (CCC) against Tushar Giri Nath (Chief Commissioner, BBMP), Mr. Satyanarayana Raju A (Executive Engineer, Project Central-2 Division), and Mr. Fateah Ahmed (Executive Engineer, Project Central 1 Division). The petition alleged willful disobedience of an order dated April 11, 2023, passed by the High Court in W.P.No.6657/2021 and connected matters. The contempt petition was filed under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, read with Article 215 of the Constitution. The State of Karnataka, Urban Development Department, was listed as a proforma respondent. The core of the contempt claim related to the alleged non-compliance with the previous High Court order concerning GST refund claims.

Held

The Court noted that a similar issue had been decided in favor of the respondent/authority by a judgment dated July 29, 2026, in W.A.No.1947/2025. Considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the complainant, the Court decided to drop the contempt proceedings. The Court further directed that the complainant could amend their claim before the Sole Arbitrator concerning the refund of GST. The Arbitrator was instructed to decide this issue in accordance with the law, after providing an opportunity to the respondent/authority to file its objections. The ratio decidendi is that when parties agree to pursue their claims in arbitration, and the contempt petition's underlying issues can be addressed within that forum, the contempt proceedings can be dropped, with liberty to amend claims in arbitration. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided, as the contempt petition was dropped and the GST refund claim was remitted to arbitration.

Key Issues

1. Whether the accused have willfully and deliberately violated the order dated 11.04.2023 passed by this Hon'ble Court in W.P.No.6657/2021 (T-RES) and other connected matters, thereby constituting contempt of court under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the respondents' actions amounted to willful disobedience of the Court's order, necessitating contempt proceedings. The petitioner sought necessary action against the accused under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Revenue/State's Contention: The judgment notes that a similar issue had been decided in favor of the respondent/authority in W.A.No.1947/2025 by a judgment dated July 29, 2026. The learned counsel for the complainant subsequently submitted that the contempt proceedings could be dropped with liberty to urge all points on facts and law in pending arbitration proceedings before a Sole Arbitrator. The complainant also sought to amend their claim before the Arbitrator regarding the refund of GST.