Disposed

M/S Affinity Real Estate Private Limited v. the State of Karntaka

Karnataka HC11 Jul 2022MFA/3684/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of this miscellaneous first appeal filed for leave to move the Vacation Court to file an application for temporary injunction. While acknowledging the inconsistency in the appellant's case and noting they had not formally applied for injunction, the court allowed the appellant liberty to file a fresh application against private respondents subject to legal exceptions.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was disposed of with liberty to the appellant to file a fresh application for temporary injunction against private respondents subject to exceptions in law.

M/S Affinity Real Estate Private Limited Vs the… — Company and Corporate | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD

¶6

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3684/2022 (CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

M/S AFFINITY REAL ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPRATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF COMPANIES ACT 1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.12,

¶9

2^ND FLOOR, 1^ST MAIN ROAD, JAYAMAHAL EXTENSION, BANGALORE - 560 046. REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR AND AUTHORISED SIGNATORY SRI.KEVAL KUMAR SHAH.

¶10

... APPELLANTS

¶11

(BY SRI. SUBRAMANYA S., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNTAKA THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶14

THE TAHASILDHAR DEVANAHALLI TALUK, DEVANAHALLI - 562 110.

¶15

SRI.MUNIYAPPA S/O SRI VENKATAPPA AGED 77 YEARS

¶16

SMT.DEVAMMA W/O SRI MUNIYAPPA AGED 67 YEARS,

¶17

SRI.JAYARAM S/O SRI MUNIYAPPA

¶18

¶19

AGED 54 YEARS,

¶20

SRI.GOPAL S/O SRI MUNIYAPPA AGED 37 YEARS,

¶21

SMT.NANJAMMA W/O SRI JAYARAM AGED 42 YEARS,

¶22

R2 TO R7 ARE R/AT ILUTHORE VILLAGE, KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK - 562 110.

¶23

SRI.C.NARAYANA SWAMY S/O LATE SRI CHANNAPPA AGED 51 YEARS,

¶24

SRI.C.KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE SRI CHANNAPA AGED 46 YEARS,

¶25

R8 & R9 ARE R/AT ILUTHORE VILLAGE, KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK-562 110.

¶26

SRI.NEERAJ P MAURYA S/O DR. PRABHU NANDAN MAURYA AGED 46 YEARS, R/AT 513, 4^TH A MAIN, OMBR LAYOUT, BANASWADI BANGALORE-560 043.

¶27

... RESPONDENTS

¶28

(BY SRI.G.M. CHANDRASHEKAR, AGA FOR R1 & R2; SRI. N. VAGEESH, ADVOCATE FOR R3, R5 TO R7; SRI. S.D.N. PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R10; NOTICE TO R4 AND R8 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)

¶29

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, 1908, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 05.05.2022 PASSED ON I.A. NO.3 IN MISC NO.3/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE VACATION COURT, BENGALURU RURAL, NOT CONSIDERING I.A. NO.3 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC.

¶30

¶31

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶32

JUDGMENT

¶33

This appeal is by the plaintiff in Miscellaneous proceedings in No.3/2022 before the Vacation Court, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru (for short, ' the Vacation Court' ). The proceeding in Misc.No.3/2022 is under Section 28 of the Karnataka Civil Courts Act, 1964 for leave to move the Court during the vacation. The appellant has moved this application for leave to file application for temporary injunction in the pending suit in O.S.No.402/2015. The appellant’s application is rejected by the vacation Court on the ground that the appellant’s request for temporary injunction is already rejected in the suit on 26.10.2021.

¶34

The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has not filed any application for temporary injunction in O.S.No.402/2005, but on 26.10.2021 an

¶35

¶36

oral request was made for grant of temporary injunction against all the defendants including the State Authorities, who are arrayed as the first and second defendants. The vacation Court has rejected such oral request opining that the appellant was seeking injunction against the State Authorities from discharging their statutory duties. The appellant has sought for leave to move the vacation bench for temporary injunction only against the private defendants and not against the State Authorities. The vacation Court, therefore, could not have rejected the leave on the ground that the earlier application for injunction is rejected.

¶37

The learned counsel for the contesting respondents submits that the appellant would not be entitled for injunction because of the inconsistency in the appellant’s case. The learned counsel submits that the appellant has sought for relief of declaration and

¶38

¶39

consequential reliefs as against the land in Sy.No.46 (New Sy.No.166) of Ilthore Village, Kundana Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District, but has taken a defence that this land would include the land in Sy.No.47 and his title to the land in Sy.No.47 cannot be disputed.

¶40

Be that as it may, this Court would opine that the appeal must be disposed of leaving open all the questions to be decided, even on the prima facie case, if the appellant files fresh application for injunction against the private respondents. This is because the respondents do not dispute that the appellant had not filed any application in O.S.No.402/2015. Therefore, the appeal stands disposed of accordingly with liberty to the appellant to file fresh application for injunction against the private respondents but subject to just exceptions in law.

¶41

¶42

In view of disposal of the appeal, IA No.1/2022 does not survive for consideration and the same is disposed of accordingly.

¶43

SD/JUDGE

¶44

SA Ct:sr

M/S Affinity Real Estate Private Limited v. the State of Karntaka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Affinity Real Estate Private Limited v. the State of Karntaka

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

Tumakuru Pattana Sahakara Bank Niyamitha Vs State of Karnataka

Sri K Vijay Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

Sri K Vijay Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Allugundaiah Vs M/S Aishwarya Developers

M/S Aishwarya Dept Bakery Vs Smt Y P Hemamalini Reddy

Muralidhar v Vs Smt.Maya H