Disposed

Tulsi Print Technologies v. Karnataka State Small Industries

Karnataka HC26 Mar 2021WP/11135/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a notice threatening eviction under the Karnataka Public Premises Act due to cheque bounces. The court held the notice was not void in law but directed the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation for payment accommodation.

What did the court decide?

Respondent directed to consider petitioner's representation for accommodation for making overdue payments.

Tulsi Print Technologies Vs Karnataka… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.11135 OF 2017 (GM-KSSIDC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

TULSI PRINT TECHNOLOGIES NO.115/6, 31^ST CROSS 22^ND MAIN ROAD, TILAK NAGAR JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 041 REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPREITORIX SMT.TRIVENI GOWDA

¶8

... PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI S.KALYAN BASAVARAJ, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

KARNATAKA STATE SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED A-180,PEENYA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE 1^ST STAGE, BENGALURU – 560 058 BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

¶12

... RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SRI G.NARASI REDDY, ADVOCATE)

¶14

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIOARARI, QUASHING THE QUASHING THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED 08.02.2017, BEARING NO.KAIVA:PEENYA:3; FLAT NOS.SF-10 & 11:2017/327, ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,

¶16

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Petitioner is before this Court questioning the notice dated 08.02.2017 issued by respondent vide Annexure-A.

¶20

Brief facts leading to filing of this writ petition is as under:

¶21

Petitioner is an allottee of a site bearing No. SF-10 and SF-11, situated at Peenya III Stage, Bangalore pursuant to which he has been put into possession vide certificate dated 06.04.2010. Lease-cum-sale agreement came to be execured on 05.03.2010, vide Annexure-C. As per the sale agreement price was fixed at Rs.73,08,234/- and the petitioner was to pay the said price in 72 equal monthly installments commencing from first day of succeeding month from the month of taking possession.

¶22

¶23

Petitioner was regular in payment of the installments as undertaken in lease-cum-sale agreement. After making initial payment of Rs.6,97,000/- in favour of respondent, which was acknowledged by the respondent in the lease-cum-sale agreement. Thereafter, petitioner got issued two cheques for a sum of Rs.5 lakhs each and due to reasons beyond his control and due to economic constraints the said two Cheques came to be dishonoured. Petitioner got issued legal notice dated 06.01.2017, and 10.01.2017 vide Annexure-D & D1 seeking for some time for making payment of the dishonored cheque. However, without considering the said request made by the petitioner respondent has got issued notice dated 08.02.2017 Vide Annexure-A, which is questioned herein by the petitioner, whereunder respondent has stated that they would take necessary steps under the provisions of Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1974 (in short ‘the Act’) for unauthorised occupation and it would seize flats in the occupation of the petitioner and recover the

¶24

¶25

arrears payable from the petitioner. It is this notice dated 08.02.2017, which is assailed by the petitioner in this writ petition.

¶26

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner contends that petitioner is a lessee under the agreement of lease-cum-sale, vide Annexure-C and belatedly taken possession of the flats in question by making initial payment of Rs.6,97,000/-, which is acknowledged by respondent and thereafter the petitioner has paid regular installments and in fulfillment of the balance amount he got issued two Cheques, which came to be dishonoured as he was unable to arrange the funds due to financial crises of demonetisation. In view of the dishonour of two Cheques petitioner made out a letter to the respondent seeking for accommodation of two months time to make payment of dishonoured Cheque amount as he was in precarious financial conditions.

¶27

Learned counsel for petitioner contends that despite petitioner showing his bonafides of his financial

¶28

¶29

difficulties, the respondent without heeding to the request, issued notice dated 08.02.2017, vide Annexure-A, wherein the respondent has threatened to initiate legal action under the Act and seize the flats in possession of the petitioner, which was taken by making payment as per Annexure-C.

¶30

Learned counsel further contends that issuance of such notice is bad in law and hence the same is unsustainable and seeks to quash the same. It is also contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that he has made a further prayer for a direction to the respondent to consider his representation to accommodate the petitioner to make payment towards the said two dishonoured Cheques amounting to Rs.5 lakhs each. Based on these submissions, the learned counsel for petitioner seeks to allow the petition.

¶31

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent contends that after execution of the lease-cum-sale agreement on 05.03.2010 and after taking possession

¶32

¶33

of the flats, as stated supra, petitioner merely by making initial payment of Rs.6,97,000/-, which is 10% of the value, has not paid single payment and has made trickling payments as promised vide Annexure-C.

¶34

Learned counsel further contends that in view of the dishonour of two Cheques amounting to Rs.5 lakhs each, the respondents have got issued notice on 08.02.2017 in accordance with law contemplating to take action as per the Act. Learned counsel further contends that he has instructions to submit that as on 31.03.2021 petitioner is due to pay a sum of Rs.1,48,25,074/towards the said lease-cum-sale agreement along with interest. Since the agreed promised amount has not been paid he contends that issuance of notice vide Annexure-A, cannot be said to be bad in law or unsustainable for simple reason that notice is issued to warn the petitioner to make payment failing which action would be initiated against petitioner for default in making payment.

¶35

¶36

9. During the course of arguments, learned

¶37

counsel for petitioner fairly submits that no action has been initiated by the respondent pursuant to issuance of Annexure-A dated 08.02.2017 or preceding filing of this petition. Therefore, admittedly, respondent has not initiated any action with regard to non-payment or nonfulfillment of the conditions of Annexure-C. learned counsel for respondent contends that since the petitioner had secured an interim order by this Court, no action is taken against him. Based on these submissions learned counsel for respondent seeks to dismiss this writ petition and contends that issuance of Annexure-A cannot be termed as bad in law as it has only contemplated to initiate action in case of non-payment and breach of terms and conditions of Annexure-C.

¶38

Having heard the learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for respondent, the points that arise for consideration before this Court is:

¶39

¶40

(1) Whether Annexure-A dated 08.02.2017 deserves to be Quashed ?

¶41

(2) Whether direction is required to be issued to the respondents as per Annexure-D & D1?

¶42

Having considered the submissions and rival

¶43

contentions of both parties, it is not in dispute that petitioner, who is lessee, vide Annexure-C, had entered into an agreement with the respondent validly, pursuant to which he has made initial payment of Rs.6,97,000/in part performance of the agreement, which is acknowledged and thereafter, though it is contended that petitioner has regularly paid the equal monthly installments, no documents have been produced by the petitioner before this Court to establish that any further payment pursuant to 05.03.2010 is made.

¶44

Be that as it may, petitioner got issued two

¶45

Cheques for Rs.5 lakhs each, which came to be dishonoured, for which respondent has got issued notice on 08.02.2017, vide Annexure-A. The sum and substance of notice at Annexure-A is that the steps would be taken to initiate action under the Act and that

¶46

¶47

they would seize flats in occupation of the petitioner for non-payment and for recovery of earlier dues.

¶48

Admittedly, respondent had not initiated any action under the Act or under any other provision against the petitioner pursuant to letter dated 06.01.2017 vide Annexures-D & D1 and also pursuant to Annexure-A dated 08.02.2017. This being the situation, it is apparent on the face of the record that there is no cause of action for the petitioner to approach this Court against issuance of Annexure-A dated 08.02.2017 in anticipation of the respondent initiating action against him under the Act. Though these may be valid contentions of the learned counsel for petitioner, it could be the defence that could be taken by the petitioner in case of action being initiated by the respondent.

¶49

It is also submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that he has continued to run the establishment in pursuance to lease-cum-sale agreement without any disturbance by the respondent

¶50

¶51

¶52

as on date. However, it does not mean that respondent is barred from initiating any action in accordance with law for any violation or default committed by the petitioner with regard to terms and conditions of Annexure-C. Therefore, issuance of Annexure-A dated 08.02.2017 cannot be said to be bad in law.

¶53

However, petitioner has made a representation way back on 06.01.2017 vide AnnexureD & D1 requesting the respondent to accommodate for making payment towards dishonour of two Cheques. In my opinion, respondent could be directed to consider the representation of the petitioner with regard to Annexure-D and D1. It is noticed from the records and submissions of the learned counsels that, much water is flown under the bridge, Whether pursuant to representation dated 06.01.2017 and in view of subsistence of an interim order passed by this Court, has there been any payment made by the petitioner to the respondent is a matter which has to be verified by the respondent. As noticed earlier, no action is initiated by the respondent as on date with regard to arrears of

¶54

¶55

¶56

rent or any proceedings in pursuance to the interim order granted by this Court.

¶57

In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for parties, I deem it proper to direct the respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner vide Annexures-D & D1 for providing accommodation to the petitioner for making payment. Respondent is at liberty to initiate action by following due process of law with regard to petitioner, committing default or violating the terms and conditions of lease-cum sale agreement.

¶58

Accordingly, with the above observations and directions writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶59

Sd/-

¶60

JUDGE

¶61

Tulsi Print Technologies v. Karnataka State Small Industries

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tulsi Print Technologies v. Karnataka State Small Industries

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mysore Paper Mills Limited Vs High Parra Construction Pvt. Ltd.

Sri B Akshay Vs State of Karnataka

Rajajinagar III Block Vs the Commissioner of Police

M/S C v Raman Associates Vs the District Health and Family Welfare Officer

Dr. K. Krishnappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Patel Veneersprivate Limited Vs State of Karnataka