Karnataka HC Approves ₹171.43-Crore Settlement Of Canal Contractor’s Pending Bills, With Contempt Case Revivable If Nigam Misses Nov 30 Deadline

In brief

The question

1. Whether the parties’ settlement could be approved and given effect to in the contempt proceedings under the High Court’s constitutional contempt jurisdiction.

The court held

The Court accepted and approved the joint memo and settlement.

It also directed

It held that, subject to due compliance with the settlement, any contempt of the order dated 25 October 2025 would stand purged, particularly in view of the unconditional apology; the complainant was also bound by its settlement commitments.

The proceedings were consigned, with liberty to the complainant to revive them if the Nigam failed to make the required payment.

01Facts

The complainant contractor obtained work from Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Niyamitha and submitted bills for completed work, but payment remained outstanding.

pp. 3–4

In W.P. No. 2767/2024, the High Court directed the respondents to release the amount claimed in the bills within four weeks of receiving the order.

p. 4

The contractor then initiated contempt proceedings alleging non-compliance.

p. 4

In a compliance affidavit and joint memo, the parties recorded a settlement under which the Nigam agreed to pay ₹171.43 crore by 30 November 2026 in full and final settlement of specified claims and disputes; the contractor was given liberty to revive the contempt proceedings if payment was not made by that date.

pp. 4–7

02Issues

i.1. Whether the parties’ settlement could be approved and given effect to in the contempt proceedings under the High Court’s constitutional contempt jurisdiction.

pp. 7–9

ii.2. Whether, in light of the settlement and the undertaking to pay, the contempt proceedings should be concluded while preserving the complainant’s liberty to revive them if payment was not made.

pp. 9–10

03Law Applied

Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 concern the High Court’s power to punish contempt and the punishment for contempt; contempt jurisdiction ordinarily addresses whether the alleged contemnor committed contumacious conduct.

p. 7, 9

Article 215 of the Constitution makes every High Court a court of record with constitutional contempt powers.

pp. 7–8

Relying on Delhi Judicial Services Association v. State of Gujarat, (1991) 4 SCC 406, the Court noted that a superior court of record is not confined to the limited jurisdiction conferred on courts created by statute and has power to determine its own jurisdiction.

pp. 7–8

Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 Section 11 Section 12

04Reasoning

The Court recognised that contempt proceedings ordinarily determine whether the accused disobeyed the court’s order and, if so, proceed to the appropriate hearing and penalty.

p. 8

However, exercising its jurisdiction under Article 215, it considered the parties’ joint settlement, which was intended to resolve multiple pending disputes and included the Nigam’s undertaking to pay ₹171.43 crore by the specified date.

pp. 8–9

The Court accepted the settlement as capable of being given effect to and relied on the express term allowing revival of the contempt proceedings in the event of non-payment.

p. 9