Allowed

M/S Kids Kemp v. M/S Food Express Stores

Karnataka HC3 Jun 2021WP/58206/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged orders recalling a direction to deposit rent arrears and delaying suit disposal. The High Court quashed the impugned orders, disposed of the interim application, and remitted the matter to the Trial Court with a six-month limit post-Covid SOPs, relying on parties' consent for expedite.

What did the court decide?

Orders dated 03.01.2015 and 05.12.2015 quashed; I.A. No.3 disposed of; matter remitted to Trial Judge to dispose of suit within six months after Covid SOP ends.

M/S Kids Kemp Vs M/S Food Express Stores — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF JUNE, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR

¶5

WRIT PETITION No.58206 OF 2015 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

M/S. KIDS KEMP A PARTNERSHIP FIRM (REGISTERED ON 29/09/1986 BEARING REGISTRATION NO.405/1986-87) HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.18, M.G.ROAD BANGALORE-560 001 AND HAVING PRINCIPAL OFFICE AT: NO.97, AIRPORT ROAD BANGALORE-560 017 REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS PARTNER, MR. RAVI V. MELWANI …PETITIONER (BY SHRI. S. AJESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶8

AND :

¶9

M/S. FOOD EXPRESS STORES (EARLIER A DIVISION OF ENPRO OIL PRIVATE LIMITED AND NOW A DIVISION OF JUBILANT AGRI AND CONSUMER PRODUCTS HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT PLOT NO. IA, SECTOR 16A INSTITUTIONAL AREA NOIDA 201 301, U.P. AND AN OFFICE AT SURYODAI COMPLEX NO.7, NEW NO.143, KODIHALLI

¶10

¶11

OLD AIRPORT ROAD BANGALORE-560 008 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER NARENDRA PRAKASH GUPTA

¶12

JUBILANT AGRI AND CONSUMER PRODUCTS LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY ITS RETAIL DIVISION M/S JUBILANT RETAIL) A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF COMPANY ACT, 1956 HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT PLOT NO.IA, SECTOR 16A INSTITUTIONAL AREA, NOIDA 201 301 U.P. AND AN OFFICE AT SURYODAI COMPLEX, NO.7 NEW NO.143, KODIHALLI OLD AIRPORT ROAD BANGALORE-560 008 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER MR. RAMAN MANGALOREKAR ... RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI. PRAMOD NAIR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 05.12.2015 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE III ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE IN I.A. NO.17 IN O.S. NO.5549/2013 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO DEPOSIT THE ARREARS OF RENT FORTHWITH.

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

ORDER

¶17

Petitioner-plaintiff is landlord of the premises. It has

¶18

taken possession of the suit property pursuant to a compromise between the parties. What remained for consideration was payment of arrears of rent. Petitioner filed an application I.A. No.3 under Section 151 of CPC seeking a direction against respondents to deposit the rent. The said application was not considered. Petitioner moved this Court in W.P. No.6987/2014, wherein this Court has directed the learned Trial Judge to hear and dispose of I.A. No.3. Pursuant thereto, learned Trial Judge vide order dated 03.01.2015 has directed the respondents-defendants to deposit or pay the arrears of rent and posted the applications I.As. No.3 and 10 for hearing on 14.01.2015. By the impugned order dated 05.12.2015, learned Trial Judge has recalled the order dated 03.01.2015. Hence, this writ petition.

¶19

Shri. S. Ajesh Kumar, learned Advocate for

¶20

petitioner submitted that the learned Trial Judge has, in

¶21

¶22

fact, reviewed the earlier order as can be gathered from the reasons recorded by the Court. He further submitted that since the suit is of the year 2013, a direction be issued for expeditious disposal of the suit. The Trial Court is not proceeding further in view of pendency of this writ petition.

¶23

Shri. Pramod Nair, learned Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2 also consented to the submissions of Shri. Ajesh Kumar.

¶24

Learned Advocates on both sides submit that

¶25

they shall co-operate for expeditious disposal. In view of the above submission, I.A. No.3 does not survive for consideration.

¶26

Hence, the following:

¶27

ORDER

¶28

(a) Orders dated 03.01.2015 and 05.12.2015 are quashed.

¶29

(b) I.A. No.3 before the Trial Court is disposed of.

¶30

¶31

(c) Matter is remitted to the learned Trial Judge to expedite the disposal of the suit and in any event, to dispose of within an outer limit of six months after the Covid SOP comes to end.

¶32

Sd/JUDGE

¶33

SPS

M/S Kids Kemp v. M/S Food Express Stores

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Kids Kemp v. M/S Food Express Stores

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

Smt. Sharadamma Vs Sri M Raju

Channakrishnappa Vs Chikkahanumappa

Sri. Raja Jayashankar Vs Sri. Rakesh Kumar

Noorjan Vs Davood Sab

Sri N Gangadhar Vs Sri M Mallappa

Sri S C Dinesh Kumar Vs Smt S N Lakshmi