Allowed

M/S Vaswani Whitefield Projects (P) Ltd. v. K C Rajaram

Karnataka HC5 Nov 2024MFA/4902/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed two miscellaneous first appeals against orders on interim injunction applications. Court set aside conflicting injunction orders in two suits and directed the Trial Court to dispose of both suits within one year.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders in O.S. No. 9024/2014 and O.S. No. 2835/2016 on I.A. No. 1 were set aside, and Trial Court directed to dispose suits within one year.

M/S Vaswani Whitefield Projects (P) Ltd. Vs K C… — Company and Corporate | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:44382 MFA No. 4902 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 4903 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4902 OF 2017 (CPC) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4903 OF 2017 (CPC) IN MFA No. 4902/2017:

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

M/S. VASWANI WHITEFIELD PROJECTS (P) LTD., (EARLIER KNOWN AS VASWANI TECHNOLOGY PARK PVT LTD) BEING A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT VASWANI VICTORIA, NO.30, VICTORIA ROAD, BANGALORE-560047 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, ARUN A. ADVANI.

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI. G.L.VISHWANATH, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT.MANASA B. RAO, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

K.C.RAJARAM MAJOR, S/O LATE K.C.REDDY, R/AT NO.18/3, 18^TH CROSS, SADASHIVANAGAR, BANGALORE-560070.

¶15

- 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:44382 MFA No. 4902 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 4903 of 2017

¶16

KAMAN HOLIDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED BEING AT COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.S711, SOUTH BLOCK, MANIPA CENTRE, DICKENSON ROAD, BANGALORE-560042 BY ITS DIRECTOR MR.K.S.SUNIL GUKPTA.

¶17

K.S.SUNIL GUPTA MAJOR KAMAN HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.S711, SOUTH BLOCK, MANIPA CENTRE, DICKENSON ROAD, BANGALORE-560042 BY ITS DIRECTOR MR.K.S.SUNIL GUKPTA.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. B. VACHAN, ADVOCATE FOR C/R2 & R3; SRI R.A.CHANDRASHEKARA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R1)

¶20

THIS MFA IS FILED U/O 43 RULE 1 (r) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20.06.2017 PASSED IN I.A.NO.1 IN O.S.NO.9024/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE 55^TH ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY (CCH-56), DISMISSING THE I.A.NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC.

¶21

IN MFA NO. 4903/2017:

¶22

BETWEEN:

¶23

M/S. VASWANI WHITEFIELD PROJECTS (P) LTD (EARLIER KNOWN AS VASWANI TECHNOLOGY PARK PVT LTD.,) BEING A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 1956

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:44382 MFA No. 4902 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 4903 of 2017

¶25

HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT “VASWANI VICTORIA” NO.30, VICTORIA ROAD BANGALORE - 560 047 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR ARUN A. ADVANI

¶26

...APPELLANT

¶27

(BY SRI. VISHWANATH, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT. MANASA B. RAO, ADVOCATE)

¶28

AND:

¶29

KAMAN HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED BEING A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO. S711, SOUTH BLOCK MANIPAL CENTRE DICKENSON ROAD BANGALORE - 560 042 BY ITS DIRECTOR MR. K.S.SUNIL GUPTA

¶30

...RESPONDENT

¶31

(BY SRI. B. VACHAN, ADVOCATE FOR C/R)

¶32

THIS MFA IS FILED U/O 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20.06.2017 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1 IN O.S.NO.2835/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE 55^TH ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE, ALLOWING I.A.NO.1 FILED U/O 39 RULES 1 AND 2 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC.

¶33

THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶34

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶35

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:44382 MFA No. 4902 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 4903 of 2017

¶36

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶37

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsels for the respondents.

¶38

These two miscellaneous appeals are filed against dismissal of I.A.No.1 filed in O.S.No.9024/2014, wherein temporary injunction is sought restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff’s possession of suit property and with plaintiff’s construction work in suit property by dismantling or removing metal sheeted barricade/compound enclosing the suit schedule property and so also in O.S.No.2835/2016, wherein I.A.No.1 was allowed restraining the appellant herein from putting up construction on the suit schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’ properties, until disposal of this suit.

¶39

Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that suit was filed in 2014 and ad-interim order was granted by the Trial Court on I.A.No.1 in O.S.No.9024/2010 and the same was in force and till dismissal of application, the plaintiff enjoyed the interim-relief from 2014 to 2017 and he had put up construction. In the other suit in O.S.No.2835/2016, injunction was granted in 2017. Learned counsel also would submit that

¶40

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:44382 MFA No. 4902 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 4903 of 2017

¶41

apartments are constructed and Completion Certificate is also issued and purchasers are in occupation of the respective apartments.

¶42

Learned counsels for the respondents also would contend that construction was made during the pendency of the suits and the appellant cannot claim any equity. Learned counsel also would submit that the appellant also filed application for amendment and sought for amendment in the suit in O.S.No.2835/2016 for possession in view of construction made by the appellant herein.

¶43

Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsels for the respondents, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that apartment is constructed in the property belonging to them and the respondents are also claiming their right in respect of their property and such property is not in existence at all. Learned counsel for the appellant also brought to notice of this Court photographs and contend that no such property in existence on the southern side of the property of the appellant and Occupancy Certificate was also issued in 2021 itself. Learned

¶44

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:44382 MFA No. 4902 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 4903 of 2017

¶45

counsel appearing for the respondents also claim that their property is on the southern side of the property of the plaintiff and they have encroached portion of the property and they have put up construction and sought for the relief of possession, apart from the relief of declaration.

¶46

Having considered the grounds urged in the appeals as well as the fact that the appellant has enjoyed the interim relief from 2014 to 2017 and respondents also claim the relief of possession, question of passing restraint order for putting up construction does not arise. Hence, the order impugned passed by the Trial Court in O.S.No.2835/2016 requires interference and the same has to be set aside and in view of seeking of relief of possession, if the respondents succeed in the suit for the relief of declaration and possession, then the appellant has to handover vacant possession to the extent and the same is also subject to proof after leading evidence and matter requires adjudication,.

¶47

It is also not in dispute that suit in O.S.No.9024/2014 was filed and the same is one decade old and another suit in O.S.No.2835/2016 is eight years old.

¶48

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:44382 MFA No. 4902 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 4903 of 2017

¶49

Admittedly, both the suits are before the same Court and the very same Presiding Officer has passed independent order in both the suits. When such being the case, taking into note of the fact that one suit is of the year 2014 and another suit is of the year 2016, a direction can be given to the parties to assist the Trial Court for disposal of the suits within a time bound period of one year from today.

¶50

In view of the discussion made above, I pass the

¶51

following:

¶52

ORDER

¶53

(i) The miscellaneous first appeals are allowed.

¶54

(ii) The impugned order passed in O.S.No.9024/2014 on I.A.No.1 is set aside granting the relief of temporary injunction directing the defendants not to interfere with possession and also the order passed in O.S.No.2835/2016 on I.A.No.1 is set aside, in view of the fact that already relief is sought for possession.

¶55

(iii) The Trial Court is directed to dispose of both the suits within a time bound period of one year from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶56

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:44382 MFA No. 4902 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 4903 of 2017

¶57

(iv) The Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the concerned Court, forthwith. The respective counsels are also directed to produce the copy of this order before the Trial Court to enable the Trial Court to dispose the suits within the stipulated period.

¶58

(v) The respective counsel and the parties are directed to assist the Trial Court in disposal of both the suits within a time bound period of one year.

¶59

Sd/(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

¶60

¶61

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27

M/S Vaswani Whitefield Projects (P) Ltd. v. K C Rajaram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Vaswani Whitefield Projects (P) Ltd. v. K C Rajaram

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

Y Anjinappa Vs Sri Muniyallappa

Shri. P.S.Manjunatha Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer and Competent Authority

Smt Kusuma Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer and Competent Authority

Sri Shivu Vs the Union of India

Sri Ashwathappa Vs Smt N Radha @ Radhamma

Sri. Chandrashekaraiah T B Vs Nil