Disposed

M/S Vinaya Enterprises v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC15 Nov 2022WP/10321/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka disposed of a writ petition challenging a letter demanding interest. Relying on a co-ordinate Bench's order, the Court directed the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board to consider the petitioner's representation for interest waiver under the same principles applied in previous cases, to be completed within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Board to consider the petitioner's representation for interest waiver within eight weeks, following the precedent set in W.P. No. 12387/2020.

M/S Vinaya Enterprises Vs the State of… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 10321 of 2020

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 10321 OF 2020 (GM-KIADB)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

M/S VINAYA ENTERPRISES NO. 342, KONEGRAHARA BEHIND SBI, CARGO BRANCH BENGLAURU 560 017 REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI. K.M JAYARAMA REDDY S/O LATE MALLA REDDY AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. GNANESH N.I, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY DEPT. OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE VIKASA SOUDHA

¶15

BENGALURU 560 001

¶16

THE KARNATKAA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD 4^TH AND 5^TH FLOOR EAST WING KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU 560 001 REP BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

¶17

¶18

WP No. 10321 of 2020

¶19

THE SECRETARY-1 THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD NO. 49, 4^TH AND 5^TH FLOOR, EAST WING KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU 560 001

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. N.KUMAR, AGA FOR R1 SRI. H.L. PRADEEP KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE LETTER DATED 07.05.2020 ISSUED BY THE R-3 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-K AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO WAIVE OFF THE INTEREST AS DEMANDED IN THE LETTER DATED 07.05.2020 AT ANNEXURE-K FOR THE PERIOD DURING WHICH THE INTERIM ORDER WAS OPERATING IN W.P.NO.13674/2015 AND W.A.NO.4885/2015 ON THE FILE OF THIS HONBLE COURT AS CONSIDERED IN THE CASE OF M/S NADAVANA EDUCATION TRUST AND ETC.,

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question a communication / letter bearing No. KIADB / HO / Allot / 18906 / 418 / 2020-21 dated 07.05.2020, sent by respondent No.3 and also direct the respondents to waive off the interest as demanded in the letter.

¶26

¶27

WP No. 10321 of 2020

¶28

Heard Sri Gnanesh N.I., learned counsel for the

¶29

petitioner, Sri N. Kumar, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 and Sri H.L.Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶30

Learned counsel for the parties would submit that the issue in the lis stands covered by an order passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.12387/2020, disposed on 19.07.2021, wherein the issue identical to the one which is now challenged in the subject petition is decided.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after the order passed in the writ petition (supra) , the representation has been submitted by the petitioner therein, to the respondents – Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (‘the Board’ for short) and the same has not merited consideration.

¶32

The issue in the lis is with regard to the demand of interest for the period during which the lis was pending

¶33

¶34

WP No. 10321 of 2020

¶35

consideration before this Court, which has ultimately culminated in the disposal, as having become infructuous. Therefore, the interest is sought for the period of pendency of the writ petition.

¶36

Identical issue is considered by the co-ordinate Bench in W.P.No.12387/2020, disposed on 19.07.2021. The order reads as follows:

¶37

“2. It is the case of the petitioner that petitioner was allotted land under Annexure–A measuring 2 Acres in Bengaluru IT Park, Devanahalli vide allotment letter dated 06.05.2013.

¶38

3. It is not in dispute that allotment came along with certain conditions and subject to payment of the tentative price of land fixed by respondent-Board. The tentative price fixed was Rs.180,00,000/- per Acre and apart from the tentative consideration the petitioner was required to pay certain other amounts upto 20% of the tentative cost within 30 days and the balance 80% on or before 05.11.2013. Admittedly the said sums have been paid.

¶39

4. It is the case of the petitioner that because the amenities were not provided and as the layout was not complete financial institutions would not come forward to grant any facility to the petitioner to complete the purchase.

¶40

5. The petitioner is present before this Court being aggrieved by the proceedings of the Board dated

¶41

¶42

WP No. 10321 of 2020

¶43

02.03.2020 whereby the respondent-board has demanded payment of interest.

¶44

6. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that the petitioner has deposited the sum and submitted a representation vide Annexure – Q. The said representation has not been addressed or considered by the board.

¶45

7. In that view of the matter, in the considered opinion of this Court, if the instant petition is disposed off, directing the respondents to dispose off the representations, at any rate within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order, without entering into the merits of the case, it would meet the ends of justice.

¶46

Accordingly, writ petition is disposed off with the above directions. All contentions are left open to be urged before the concerned authority.

¶47

The petition stands ordered accordingly.”

¶48

Therefore, the respondents – Board are directed to

¶49

consider the representation that is submitted by the petitioner, within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶50

At this juncture, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that identical representations submitted by the similarly situated allottees, particularly M/s.Nandanavana Education Trust have been considered

¶51

¶52

WP No. 10321 of 2020

¶53

and the Board would consider the representation

¶54

submitted by the petitioner in accordance with law.

¶55

The submission is taken on record.

¶56

The writ petition is disposed, with a direction to

¶57

the Board to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner for waiver of interest in terms of what the Board has already considered in the case of M/s.Nandavana Education Trust, within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. In case, the petitioner has not submitted any representation, he is at liberty to submit a representation within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order and the Board shall consider the same, within eight weeks thereafter.

¶58

Ordered accordingly.

¶59

Sd/JUDGE

¶60

NVJ

M/S Vinaya Enterprises v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Vinaya Enterprises v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr Sreenivas S Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. K.M. Prasanna Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Dr Venkatesh B Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri K S Arun Kumar Vs the Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

M/S Pushpagiri Power Ltd. Vs the Registrar of Company

M/S Venkateshwara Enterprises Vs the State of Karnataka