Karnataka HC Drops Contempt Case After Bank General Manager Belatedly Acts On Grievance Order And Apologises

The complainant filed a contempt petition alleging non-compliance with the Single Judge’s order dated 19 November 2024 in W.P. No. 202364 of 2024.

That order directed the respondents to consider specified representations and take an appropriate decision in accordance with law within six weeks of receiving the order.

The complainant’s writ appeal was dismissed on 10 April 2026; he later sought implementation of the order, but alleged that it remained uncomplied with.

In the contempt proceedings, respondent No. 2 filed an additional compliance affidavit stating that the representation had been considered and a decision communicated on 14 October 2026, acknowledging delay, denying deliberate disobedience, and tendering an unconditional apology.

The petition invoked Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India.

The underlying judicial direction required the respondents to consider the specified representations and take an appropriate decision in accordance with law within six weeks.

The Court’s order applies the principle that, where the direction has been complied with, no further consideration of the contempt petition is necessary; it did not cite any precedent or elaborate a separate test for wilful disobedience.

The Court considered the compliance affidavit, which recorded that the representation had been considered and the decision communicated on 14 October 2026, although after the stipulated period.

It accepted that the order had been duly complied with and noted respondent No. 2’s unconditional apology for the delay.

On that basis, the Court held that nothing further survived for consideration in the contempt petition.

Notice to respondents Nos. 1 and 2 was discharged, and the complainant was granted liberty to challenge the endorsement issued by them, if desired.

Pending interlocutory applications were disposed of.