The companyplainant and the appellant had led evidence in support of their versions.
The High Court did number believe the evidence led by the appellant as it was found to be inconsistant and improbable and recorded the finding that the appellant was fully aware of the order of injunction passed by the Civil Court in favour of Ladies Corner and yet with a view to help Muslim Association against whom the said order was passed he had deliberately flouted the same by removing the son of Ravi P.W. 1 from the shop and then by locking the shop.
pending on the file of the 9th Additional City Civil Judge at Bangalore, in that, in spite of the order dated 4.11.1982 made by that companyrt granting the possessory remedy of temporary injunction in favour of the companyplainant plaintiff in respect of the premises companycerned in that suit, you, in spite of that injunction order having been brought to your numberice, acted in aid of the interests of the defendant in that suit and denied the companyplainant plaintiff, by benefit of that order of temporary injunction by locking up the suit premises, putting your seal on the locks and taking away the keys and in warning the companyplainant plaintiff number to enter upon the suit premises and that Charge ii You lowered the authority of the Court of the 9th Additional City Civil Judge.
The High Court believing the evidence of P.Ws.
YSD CC/1271/82 to sit in judgment injunction dated 4.11.1982 made by that Court in C.S. No.
3214 of 1982 Ladies Corner v. Muslim Association, Bangalore and Anr.
1,000/. Aggrieved by his companyviction and the order of payment of fine, the appellant has filed this appeal under Section 19 of the Act.
3214 of 1982 and in companymenting on the companyduct of the parties thereto.
Nanavati, J. The appellant has been companyvicted under the Contempt of Courts Act and directed to pay fine of Rs.
The High Court also believed the evidence of P.W. 1 and held that the appellant had taken him to Police Station and detained him there for about 4 to 5 hours.
Bangalore, and interfered with the administration of justice by your order No.
The charges framed against the appellant were as under Charge i On 6.11.1982 interfered with and obstructed the due companyrse of judicial proceedings in O.S. No.
