Disposed

M/S Karnata Ventures LLP v. M/S Pirmal Capital and Housing Finance Ltd.

Karnataka HC13 Jun 2024WP/10015/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by a restaurant operator against a finance company and borrowers. The court permitted the petitioner to remove belongings from the premises within a month and ordered the business to continue until RBI permission is granted for bank possession.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of; respondents directed to permit petitioner to remove belongings within one month; petitioner allowed to continue business pending RBI permission.

M/S Karnata Ventures LLP Vs M/S Pirmal Capital and… — Company and Corporate | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:21313 WP No. 10015 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.10015 OF 2024 (GM-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

M/S KARNATA VENTURES LLP INCORPORATED UNDER LLP ACT 2008, LLP IDENTIFICATION NUMBER ACA-7683, BY ITS DESIGNATED PARTNERS.

¶8

SRI BHARATH BHUSHAN,

¶9

S/O LAKSHMANE GOWDA,

¶10

AGED 36 YEARS.

¶11

SMT CHANDRAKALA K M, W/O P RAME GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,

¶12

Digitally signed by Vandana S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.11 AND 12/49, 1^ST FLOOR, 14^TH CROSS, PUTTENEHALLI, 7^TH PHASE, J P NAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 078.

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI. SHANKARANARAYANA BHAT N., ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

M/S PIRMAL CAPITAL AND HOUSING FINANCE LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER, ANANDA KUMAR N, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.13, OLD NO.5, 1^ST MAIN ROAD, VASANTHNAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 052.

¶18

SRI MURALI K S/O KRISHNAPPA, AGED MAJOR,

¶19

¶20

NC: 2024:KHC:21313 WP No. 10015 of 2024

¶21

RESIDING AT NO.13/49, 14^TH CROSS, PUTTENEHALLI, 7^TH PHASE, J P NAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 078.

¶22

SRI MUNIRAJU K S/O KRISHNAPPA, AGED MAJOR, RESIDING AT NO.13/49, 14^TH CROSS, PUTTENEHALLI, 7^TH PHASE, J P NAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 078.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. JAI.M.PATIL., ADVOCATE)

¶25

THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND QUASH THE ORDER OF THE II ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU IN C.MISC.NO.47/2024 DTD 09.02.2024 MARKED AS ANNEXURE-C IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE SWADA RESTAURANT IN FIRST FLOOR PREMISES BEARING NO.11 AND 12/49, 14^TH CROSS, PUTTENENHALLI, 7^TH PHASE J.P NAGAR, BENGALURUR-560078, BY THE ISSUE OF A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION AS THE CASE MAY BE AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO DIRECT THE R1 NOT TO DISTURB OR INTERFERE WITH THE PEACEFUL POSSESSION AND FOR CARRYING OUT THEIR BUSINESS AND GRANT THE PETITIONER SUCH OTHER FURTHER RELIEF AS DEEMED FIT.

¶26

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

¶27

ORDER

¶28

In this petition, petitioner seeks to quash the order at Annexure – C dated 09.02.2024 passed in C.Misc.No.47/2024 by the II Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC:21313 WP No. 10015 of 2024

¶31

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned

¶32

counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

¶33

3. On 19.04.2024, this Court passed the following order:

¶34

“The petitioner is before this Court seeking quashment of an order dated 09.02.2024, passed by the learned II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, in C.Misc.No.47/2024.

¶35

Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned counsel for respondents.

¶36

The petitioner is a tenant in the property that is owned by respondent Nos.2 and 3, who are the borrowers from the hands of respondent No.1- finance.

¶37

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the building has three floors, in one of the floors, IDFC First Bank is in occupation in one portion of the premises and the petitioner is in occupation in another portion of the premises. The borrowers have defaulted in payment. Respondent No.1 has now initiated proceedings to take possession of the property. The possession of the IDFC First Bank is not taken but the possession of the petitioner – restaurant is taken.

¶38

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the entire rent that is to be paid to the borrower would be paid to respondent No.1 – Finance and they be permitted to run the restaurant during the pendency of the subject petition.

¶39

The plea of the petitioner appears to be rational as respondent No.1 is now demonstrating partisan attitude in not taking the possession of the bank in the first floor and the

¶40

¶41

NC: 2024:KHC:21313 WP No. 10015 of 2024

¶42

possession of the petitioner which is in the another portion of the premises is taken.

¶43

Learned counsel for respondent No.1 – Finance would justify that if the possession of IDFC First bank is to be taken, permission from RBI has to be obtained. Therefore, the possession of the bank which is in the same premises is not taken of and respondent No.1 – finance has applied before the RBI seeking permission to take possession of the property.

¶44

In the light of the aforesaid submissions, till the RBI permits respondent No.1 – Finance to take possession of the floor, in which IDFC First Bank is occupied, the petitioner shall also continue its business in the premises, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall pay the entire rent payable to respondent Nos.2 and 3 – borrowers directly to respondent No.1 – Finance and respondent No.1 – Finance shall accept the same, which shall be subject to the result of the writ petition.

¶45

Learned counsel for respondent No.1 – Finance submits that the finance cannot receive the rent as it would become an acknowledgement of the tenancy with the petitioner and the borrower. The said submission does not merit any acceptance albeit prima facie, as the rent is received pursuant to the order of this Court and which shall remain subject to the outcome of the writ petition.

¶46

It is made clear that this Court has not recognized the tenancy or any other rights of the parties - the petitioner and the borrowers.

¶47

List this matter on 13.06.2024.”

¶48

¶49

NC: 2024:KHC:21313 WP No. 10015 of 2024

¶50

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner on instructions

¶51

submits that the petitioner is in possession of the petition schedule premises and is running the restaurant business in the premises. It is submitted that the petitioner may be permitted to remove all the belongings, movables, etc., belonging to it from the schedule premises.

¶52

Learned counsel for the respondent – bank submits

¶53

that respondents have no objection to the petitioner to remove all its belongings from the schedule premises.

¶54

The said submission is placed on record.

¶55

In view of the aforesaid submissions, petition stands disposed of directing respondents to permit the petitioner to remove all its belongings, movable articles, etc., from the schedule premises within a period of one month from today.

¶56

Sd/JUDGE

¶57

¶58

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 72

M/S Karnata Ventures LLP v. M/S Pirmal Capital and Housing Finance Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Karnata Ventures LLP v. M/S Pirmal Capital and Housing Finance Ltd.

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

Mr Selvakumar Vs Mahila Co. Operative Bank Ltd.

Smt. Vijayalakshmi. H. a. Vs the Bengaluru City Co. Op Bank Ltd.

Shri Akmal Pasha Vs Home First Finance Company

Global Payment Services Private Limited Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. Mahendra Babu Gadadoss Vs Axis Bank Limited

Print Imaging Systems Vs Rbl Bank Limited