Karnataka High Court
Mr. Arvind Mehra v. Shri.jagadeesha.g
2026:KHC:33365-DB · CCC/1283/2025
- Decision date
- 2026-07-03
- Text availability
- Full text
- Judges
- K. S. Hemalekha
Source: Indian High Court Judgments, AWS Open Data (CC BY 4.0) ↗
Connected provisions and cases
No further provision or case links are recorded.
Judgment text
- 1 - NC: 2026:KHC:33365-DB CCC No. 1283 of 2025 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.1283 OF 2025 BETWEEN: MR. ARVIND MEHRA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, S/O LATE DR. L.S MEHRA A 302 MANTRI SAROVAR HSR LAYOUT, SECTOR-4, BENGALURU - 560 102. …COMPLAINANT (BY SRI. KASHYAP N. NAIK, ADVOCATE) AND: Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B 1. SHRI. JAGADEESHA .G M DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,Location: High Court of KANDAYA BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD, Karnataka BENGALURU - 560 009. 2. MR. METHUKU SRINIVAS DIRECTOR OF MANTRI DWELLING PVT. LTD., (NOW SHORE DWELLINGS PVT. LTD.) A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 1956 OFFICE AT: MANTRI HOUSE, NO.41, VITTAL MALLYA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. …ACCUSED - 2 - NC: 2026:KHC:33365-DB CCC No. 1283 of 2025 HC-KAR 3. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, M.S. BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001. …PRO FORMA RESPONDENT (BY SMT. B. SUKANYA BALIGA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR A-1 & PRO FORMA RESPONDENT NO.3; SRI. HARSHA D. JOSHI, ADVOCATE FOR A-2) THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, R/W ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO INITIATE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED FOR WILLFUL DISOBEDIENCE OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT
IN W.P.NO.19776/2023 DATED 26.04.2025. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE) 1. The complainant has filed the present complaint alleging willful disobedience of the order dated 26.04.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.19776/2023 [GM-RES], whereby the Court had directed the State Authorities to take further steps pursuant to the Revenue Recovery Certificate dated 25.01.2023. - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:33365-DB CCC No. 1283 of 2025 HC-KAR 2. The accused No.2 has filed a compliance affidavit stating that the company has deposited a sum of `72,18,293/- vide Demand Draft dated 25.02.2026 with the Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (KRERA). A photocopy of the said Demand Draft is also enclosed with the affidavit. 3. In view of the above, the Recovery Certificate stands satisfied. 4. Before concluding, we may note that there is some controversy as to whether the recovery certificate is for a sum of `72,18,293/- along with further interest; or the recovery certificate is for an amount of `72,18,293/-. We note that the operative portion of the order dated 07.10.2022 issued by KRERA reads as under: "ORDER
In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 31 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, the complaint bearing No.CMP/UR/210303/0007737 is hereby allowed. Respondent is directed to pay the amount of Rs.72,18,293/- (Rupees Seventy Two Lakh Eighteen Thousand Two Hundred and Ninety Three only) calculated at 9% from 31/03/2014 to 28/05/2017 and MCLR + 2% from 28/05/2017 till 03/12/2019 to the complainant within 60 days from the date of this order. The complainant is at liberty to initiate action for recovery in accordance with law if the respondent fails to pay the amount as per the order of this Authority." - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:33365-DB CCC No. 1283 of 2025 HC-KAR 5. A plain reading of the aforesaid order indicates that the accused was directed to pay a sum of `72,18,293/-, which comprises of interest alone. 6. It is not necessary for this Court to examine the said controversy, as it is apparent that no proceedings for willful disobedience of the order can be initiated pending resolution of the controversy. The complaint is accordingly closed. 7. However, it is clarified that this shall not preclude the parties from availing of their substantive remedies to agitate any subsisting grievance, albeit in accordance with law. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE AT List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26