M/S N D WADDAR AND CO vs SRI GAURAV GUPTA

- 1 -
CCC No. 1556 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 30 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI

AND

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE N.V.BHAVANI

CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.1556 OF 2025

BETWEEN:


M/S N D WADDAR AND CO,
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM,
REGISTERED UNDER THE PARTNERSHIP ACT,
P.W.D CLASS-I CONTRACTOR,
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT
H.NO.2-11-971/1, KALABURGI MAIN ROAD,
NEAR BASAVASAGAR CROSS,
LINGASAGURU, RAICHUR DISTRICT-584 115,
REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER,
SRI KAREPPA CHANNUR.
…COMPLAINANT
(BY SRI SANTOSH S.NAGARALE, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SRI GAURAV GUPTA,
ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY,
WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
VIKASA SOUDHA, DR.B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560 001.

2. SRI KRISHNAMURTHY B KULKARNI,
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KRISHNA BHAGYA JALA NIGAM NIYAMITHA,
RD
OFFICE AT 3 FLOOR,
P.W.D ANNEXURE BUILDING,
K R CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560 001. …ACCUSED











Digitally
signed by K G
RENUKAMBA
Location:
High Court of
Karnataka

3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY,
WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
VIKASA SOUDHA,

- 2 -
CCC No. 1556 of 2025

DR. B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560 001.
…PROFORMA RESPONDENT

(BY SMT.NAMITHA MAHESH.B.G., AGA FOR PROFORMA R3;
SRI PRASHANTH B.R., ADVOCATE FOR A2; A1 SERVED)

THIS CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS
11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 BY THE
COMPLAINANT, PRAYING TO INITIATE APPROPRIATE ACTION
AGAINST THE ACCUSED NOS.1 AND 2 FOR CONTEMPT OF THIS
HON’BLE COURT FOR THEIR NON COMPLIANCE WITH THE ORDER
AND DIRECTIONS ISSUED IN W.P.NO.2767/2024 (GM-RES) DATED
25.10.2025 AND TO HOLD ACCUSED NOS.1 AND 2 GUILTY OF CIVIL
CONTEMPT FOR WILLFUL DISOBEDIENCE THEREOF AND FURTHER BE
PLEASED TO GRANT SUCH OTHER AND SUITABLE RELIEFS AS THIS
HON’BLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT.

THIS CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS
DAY, JAYANT BANERJI J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI
and
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE N.V.BHAVANI

CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI)
The contempt petition is filed alleging willful disobedience
of the order dated 25.10.2025 passed in W.P.No.2767/2024.
The complainant who is stated to be a PWD Class-I Contractor
and empanelled as Category-I contractor under the Krishna
1
Bhagya Jala Nigam Niyamitha . Subsequent to the tender
notified by accused No.2/Nigam, the complainant had applied
and was successful. A letter of acceptance was issued on
23.07.2021 whereafter the agreement came to be executed

1
Nigam

- 3 -
CCC No. 1556 of 2025

between the complainant and the Nigam. In terms of the work
order issued by the Nigam, the complainant undertook the
work and completed it. The bill was submitted by the
complainant for realization of payment. On satisfactory
completion of the work, completion certificate was issued by
the Quality Controllers in respect of seven bills pertaining to
Package-I. However, the complainant was not paid the amount
and several representations were submitted.

2. Though complaints were registered before the
Lokayukta and Estimate Committee of the Karnataka
Legislature and Expert Committee was appointed vide order
dated 10.06.2022 to quantify the defects in the estimates and
works undertaken. The said order dated 10.06.2022 was
withdrawn on 04.01.2024.


3. Though the complainant completed the remaining
works and submitted the bills for realisation of the payment,
however, the same was not cleared by the Nigam.

4. The learned Single Judge in the order dated
25.10.2025, issued a mandamus to the respondents/accused to
release the amount claimed by the complainant through the
bills submitted within an outer limit of four weeks from the date
of receipt of a copy of the order.

- 4 -
CCC No. 1556 of 2025

5. A compliance affidavit was filed on 29.09.2026. The
deponent is Krishnamurthy B. Kulkarni, who is the Managing
Director of the Nigam and accused No.2 in the contempt
petition. It is stated therein that on being approached by the
complainant, bilateral discussions were held between the
parties and after several rounds of discussion, the parties have
arrived at a settlement. The terms of the settlement have been
narrated. An unconditional apology has also been tendered by
accused No.2. Under the terms of the settlement, accused
No.2-Nigam has undertaken to pay an amount of Rs.171.43
crores on or before 30.11.2026 towards full and final
settlement of all the claims, issues and disputes made in
W.P.No.2767/2024, C.C.C.No.1556/2025 (instant contempt
petition), W.A.No.912/2026 and W.A.No.80/2026.

6. A joint memo of the parties was also filed on
29.09.2026 signed by the partner of the complainant and the
Managing Director of the Nigam. The terms of settlement are as
follows:
TERMS OF SETTLEMENT

1. It is submitted that, as per the report submitted by
the Hon'ble retired High court Justice Sri.
H.N.Nagamohandas in respect of Extension,
Renovation and Modernization of Narayanapura Right
Bank Canal Distributaries from 1 to 18 and after the
detailed examination by the department, it was found
that the estimation cost which was prepared by the

- 5 -
CCC No. 1556 of 2025

Department was towards the higher side and an
amount of Rs.172.12 crores (excluding GST) was
found extra on the estimation cost.

2. It is submitted that, out of the Rs.172.12 crores
(excluding GST), Rs.63.58 (excluding GST) was found
extra on the estimation cost of Package-I and
Rs.108.54 (excluding GST) was found extra on the
estimation cost of Package-II (Excluding GST).

3. It is submitted that, both the parties have agreed
that, in the balance amount to be received by the
Complainant in Package-I and Package-II, the above
amount additional estimation cost i.e., Rs.172.12
crores including applicable GST will be deducted and
paid to the Complainant.

4. It is submitted that, both the parties have agreed
that additional estimation cost i.e., Rs.172.12 crores
including applicable GST is Rs.203.09 (Rs.172.12
crores + 30.97 GST). Bifurcation of the same is as
follows:


(Rs. in Crores)
Sl.
No.
Package Without GST With GST
1 Package-I 63.58 75.02
2 Package-II 82.17 96.96
3 Package-III 26.37 31.11
Total 172.12 203.09

5. It is submitted that, both the parties have agreed
that the balance amount to be paid to the
Complainant excluding the above deduction of
Rs.203.09, in Package-I and in Package-II added
together is Rs.374.52 the calculation is as follows:

(Rs. in Crores)

Package Agreement
cost
including
GST
Bill Bill paid Pending
submitted Bill
Amount
Package-I 977.51 867.66 590.10 277.55
Package-II 909.23 477.78 377.71 96.97
(Rs.3.10 Cr
against
shrinkage is
deducted)
Total 1886.74 1345.44 967.81 374.52
Deduction to be done as per the Government
order dated 02.06.2026 and 19.06.2026 in
Package-I and Package-II
203.09
(Rs.172.12
crores +
30.97 GST)
Amount payable to the contractor 171.43

- 6 -
CCC No. 1556 of 2025

6. It is submitted that, both the parties agree that the
balance amount to be received from the
Complainant after all the deductions shown in the
above paragraphs is Rs.171.43 Cr.

7. It is agreed by the, Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam
Limited i.e. Accused No.2 that an amount of
Rs.171.43 Cr shall be paid to the Complainant herein
towards full and final settlement of the pending 1 to
th
7 RA bills of Package - I and package-II works.

8. The complainant herein has agreed to receive an
amount of Rs.171.43 Cr towards full and final
th
settlement of the pending 1 to 7 RA bills of
Package - I and package-II works.

9. It is agreed by the Complainant that, the Krishna
Bhagya Jala Nigam Limited le. Accused No.2 shall
pay an amount of Rs. 171.43. Cr on or before 30th
November, 2026, towards full and final settlement of
all the Claims, issues and disputes made in WP
No.2767/2024, CCC.1556/2025, WA No.912/2026
and WA No.80/2026.

10. The Complainants agree that there are no more
claims whatsoever against Krishna Bhagya Jala
Nigam Limited i.e. Accused No.2 and that they shall
not raise any dispute or any Claims before any
Authorities or Court of law against the Krishna
Bhagya Jala Nigam Limited i.e. Accused No.2 with
th
regard to pending 1 to 7 RA bills of Package I and
package-II works.

11. It is submitted that if the payment not made by the
Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Limited within the time
stipulated herein, the complainant has liberty to
revive the above contempt proceedings.

12. It is agreed by the Complainant that the balance
work to be executed (approximate amount
Rs.544.41 Cr. including GST) in respect of Package-
1 & Package-II will be completed at the earliest.
Further it is agreed by the Krishna Bhagya Jala
Nigam Limited that on completion of balance work
and on submission of bills by the Complainant, the
same will be verified and processed for payment
immediately.

- 7 -
CCC No. 1556 of 2025

13. The Complainants agree that they have entered into
settlement voluntarily and without force and undue
influence and after fully understanding the contents
and consequences thereof.

In view of the settlement arrived at, both the parties
respectfully pray that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased
to drop the above Contempt Petition, in the interest of
justice and equity."



7. Though the powers of the Court under the
2
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 are limited to examining the
contumacious conduct, if any, of the accused, however, Article
215 of the Constitution of India vests this Court with more
authority. The Supreme Court in the case of the Delhi Judicial
3
Services Association v. State of Gujarat while referring to the
provision of said Article 129 of the Constitution as well as the
Act (Article 129 being pari-materia to Article 215 of the
Constitution) held that Courts constituted under the law
enacted by Parliament or the State Legislature have limited
jurisdiction and they cannot assume jurisdiction in a matter not
expressly assigned to them, but that is not so in the case of a
superior Court of record constituted by the Constitution. Such a
Court does not have a limited jurisdiction, instead it has power
to determine its own jurisdiction. No matter is beyond the
jurisdiction of a superior Court of record unless it is expressly

2
the Act
3
(1991) 4 SCC 406

- 8 -
CCC No. 1556 of 2025

shown to be so under the provisions of the Constitution. After
relying on two Constitution Bench judgments and a judgment of
a Division Bench, the Supreme Court held that it being the
Apex Court and a Superior Court of record, has power to
determine its jurisdiction under Article 129 of the Constitution
to initiate or entertain the proceedings for contempt of
subordinate Courts. If such determination is made by the High
Court, the same would be subject to appeal to the Supreme
Court, but if the jurisdiction is determined by the Supreme
Court, it would be final.


8. The amicable settlement between the parties, as
reflected in the joint memo, containing the terms and
settlement has been entered into in order to put an end to the
long-round of litigation. Multiple cases are pending between the
parties.

9. Ordinarily in exercise of contempt jurisdiction, as
noticed above, this Court would consider whether the accused
has committed contempt of court and proceed, either to
discharge him or to hear him on framing of charge and, if need
be, proceed to conduct the summary trial. Thereafter, subject
to the outcome of the trial, the penalties as prescribed can be
imposed.

- 9 -
CCC No. 1556 of 2025

10. However, in the present case, after noticing the
facts and circumstances of the case and the terms of
settlement, we deem it fit to exercise jurisdiction under Article
215 of the Constitution, giving our imprimatur to the settlement
since we find that the terms of settlement can be given effect
to. They bind the parties with an undertaking furnished by the
Managing Director of the Nigam that would help to resolve the
several outstanding disputes and advance the interest of
justice. Moreover, Clause 11 of the terms of settlement does
mention that if the payment is not made by the Nigam within
the time stipulated in the terms of the settlement, that is, till
30.11.2026, the complainant would have liberty to revive the
above contempt proceedings.

11. In view of the aforesaid, the joint memo is accepted
and the terms of settlement therein are approved. Subject to
due compliance of the terms of the settlement, contempt, if
any, committed by the accused of the order dated 25.10.2025
passed in W.P.No.2767/2024 by the writ Court particularly in
view of the unconditional apology proffered, would stand
purged. The complainant shall also be bound by his
commitments under the settlement. This case is accordingly
consigned.

- 10 -
CCC No. 1556 of 2025


12. It is however left open to the complainant to revive
the above contempt proceedings if the payments are not duly
made by the Nigam/accused.






Sd/-
(JAYANT BANERJI)
JUDGE


Sd/-
(N.V.BHAVANI)
JUDGE









KSR