Disposed

Bangalore Baptist Church v. Charles Isaac

Karnataka HC13 Mar 2024WP/1427/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of crossed writ petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. While noting that applications for temporary injunction and rejection of plaint in the underlying suit remained pending, the Court directed the trial court to preponer hearing date and issued specific interim orders to ensure disposal without prejudice to merits.

What did the court decide?

Directed trial court to preponer hearing to 18.03.2024 and dispose of interim applications on or before 17.04.2024; prohibited alienation of suit property pending disposal.

Bangalore Baptist Church Vs Charles Isaac — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:10497 WP No. 1427 of 2024 C/W WP No. 1001 of 2024

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.1427 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)

¶8

C/W

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO. 1001 OF 2024(GM-CPC)

¶10

IN W.P.1427/2024:

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

BANGALORE BAPTIST CHURCH A REGISTERED TRUST REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN PASTOR DANIEL A BHASME AGED 56 YEARS, S/O LATE ANANTH BHASME NO.11, COMMISSARIAT ROAD, BANGALORE-560 025.

¶13

…PETITIONER

¶14

(BY SRI. D.R.RAVI SHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. CHHAYA K., ADVOCATE)

¶15

Digitally signed by LEELAVATHI S R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

AND:

¶17

CHARLES ISAAC

¶18

AGED MAJOR, 316, 1^ST CROSS, 3^RD BLOCK, HRBR LAYOUT, ST. THOMAS TOWN, BANGALORE-560 084.

¶19

CHARLES PRABHAKAR AGED MAJOR, HITHANANDA – 2, 1^ST FLOOR 48, LAVELLE ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶20

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:10497 WP No. 1427 of 2024 C/W WP No. 1001 of 2024

¶21

VERKEY GEORGE AGED MAJOR, SHELTER NO.29, 2^ND MAIN MUNIREDDY LAYOUT, HORAMAVU, BANGALORE-560 043.

¶22

M/S NITESH ESTATES LIMITED COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 LEVEL 7, NITESH TIMES SQUARE, # 8, MG ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. ARUN KUMAR K., SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. NEERAJ SASTRY., ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-3; SMT. SUMANA NAGANAND., ADVOCATE FOR R-4)

¶25

THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ALLOW I.A.NO.2 FILED IN O.S.7515/2023, BEFORE THE XLI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AS PRAYED FOR (ANNEXURE-C) AND ETC.

¶26

IN W.P.1001/2024:

¶27

BETWEEN:

¶28

BANGALORE BAPTIST CHURCH A REGISTERED TRUST REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN PASTOR DANIEL A BHASME AGED 56 YEARS, S/O LATE ANANTH BHASME NO.11, COMMISSARIAT ROAD, BANGALORE-560 025.

¶29

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. D.R.RAVI SHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. CHHAYA K., ADVOCATE)

¶30

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:10497 WP No. 1427 of 2024 C/W WP No. 1001 of 2024

¶31

AND:

¶32

CHARLES ISAAC AGED MAJOR, 316, 1^ST CROSS, 3^RD BLOCK, HRBR LAYOUT, ST THOMAS TOWN, BANGALORE-560 084.

¶33

CHARLES PRABHAKAR AGED MAJOR, HITHANANDA – 2, 1^ST FLOOR 48, LAVELLE ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶34

VERKEY GEORGE AGED MAJOR, SHELTER NO.29, 2^ND MAIN MUNIREDDY LAYOUT, HORAMAVU, BANGALORE-560 043.

¶35

M/S NITESH ESTATES LIMITED COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 LEVEL 7, NITESH TIMES SQUARE, NUMBER 8, MG ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.

¶36

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ARUN KUMAR.K., SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. NEERAJ SASTRY.,ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-3; SMT. SUMANA NAGANAND., ADVOCATE FOR R-4)

¶37

THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ALLOW I.A.NO.1 FILED IN OS 7515/2023, BEFORE THE XLI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AS PRAYED FOR (ANNEXURE-C) AND ETC.

¶38

THESE PETITIONS ARE COMING ON FOR ORDERS , THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶39

¶40

NC: 2024:KHC:10497 WP No. 1427 of 2024 C/W WP No. 1001 of 2024

¶41

ORDER

¶42

Both these petitions arise out of the suit in

¶43

O.S.No.7515/2023 pending on the file of the XLI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.

¶44

2. Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and learned Senior Counsel for the respondents in both the petitions and perused the material on record.

¶45

3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that in the aforesaid suit, the petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned orders whereby the Trial Court declined to pass orders on I.A.Nos.1 and 2 for temporary injunction filed by the petitioner / plaintiff against the respondents – defendants. It is a matter of record that respondents – defendants have entered appearance and have not still filed their statement of objections to I.A.Nos.1 and 2 and that the suit currently stands posted to 25.03.2024. Further, respondents have also filed I.A.No.3 for rejection of plaint.

¶46

4. The order sheet maintained by this Court will indicate

¶47

that there are interim orders passed in the present petition. However, in the light of the undisputed fact that I.A.Nos.1, 2 and 3 are still pending consideration, without expressing any opinion on

¶48

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:10497 WP No. 1427 of 2024 C/W WP No. 1001 of 2024

¶49

the merits / demerits of the rival contentions, I deem it just and appropriate to direct the Trial Court to prepone / advance the case from 25.03.2024 to 18.03.2024 by making certain interim arrangements, which will remain in force for the limited period till disposal of I.A.Nos.1, 2 and 3 by the Trial Court.

¶50

5. In the result, I pass the following:

¶51

ORDER

¶52

(i) Both petitions are hereby disposed of.

¶53

(ii) The Trial Court is directed to prepone O.S.No.7515/2023 from 25.03.2024 to 18.03.2024.

¶54

(iii) Both petitioner and / or respondents are directed to file appropriate application(s) before the Trial Court to prepone / advance the case from 25.03.2024 to 18.03.2024.

¶55

(iv) It is further directed that on 18.03.2024, the respondent Nos.1 to 3 as well as respondent No.4, who has been placed ex-parte shall be permitted to file statement of objections, documents, etc., to I.A.Nos.1 and 2, which shall be considered by the Trial Court in accordance with law.

¶56

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:10497 WP No. 1427 of 2024 C/W WP No. 1001 of 2024

¶57

(v) The Trial Court is directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on I.A.Nos.1 and 2. In addition thereto, since application – I.A.No.3 filed by respondent Nos.1 to 3 under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint is also pending consideration, the Trial Court shall dispose of all the applications – I.A.Nos.1, 2 and 3, in accordance with law.

¶58

(vi) The Trial Court is directed to consider and dispose of I.A.Nos.1 to 3, in accordance with law, on or before 17.04.2024 as contemplated under Order 39 Rule 3A CPC, without seeking extension of time under any circumstances whatsoever.

¶59

(vii) By way of interim arrangement and without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties, it is directed that none of the parties shall alienate, encumber or create third party rights over the suit schedule property till disposal of I.A.Nos.1, 2 and 3 as stated supra.

¶60

(viii) The Trial Court shall dispose of I.A.Nos.1 to 3 after hearing all parties and without being influenced by the findings and observations, if any, recorded either in the

¶61

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:10497 WP No. 1427 of 2024 C/W WP No. 1001 of 2024

¶62

present order or in the interim orders / arrangements passed

¶63

/ made in the present petition.

¶64

(ix) It is further directed that till disposal of I.A.Nos.1 to 3, the Arbitral Tribunal, arising out of CMP No.227/2020 is directed not to close / conclude the arbitral proceedings.

¶65

(x) It is made clear that the present interim arrangement is for the limited purpose of ensuring disposal of I.A.Nos.1 to 3 by the Trial Court and the same shall not be used by any of the parties for any other purpose whatsoever.

¶66

(xi) All rival contentions on all aspects of the matter are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same.

¶67

(xii) Parties are directed to co-operate with the Trial

¶68

Court for compliance of this order.

¶69

Sd/JUDGE

¶70

¶71

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 6

Bangalore Baptist Church v. Charles Isaac

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bangalore Baptist Church v. Charles Isaac

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

Sri Mandya Ramalinge Gowda Ashoknanda Vs the Chief Commissioner of

R Anasuyammya Vs Sri M Thippaiah

Bhavani Glass and Plywood Traders Vs the Income Tax Officer

Mr Sunil Kumar Nahar Vs M/S Melange

P. Hanumantha Raju Vs Smt. Kalamma

Sri Shivanna Vs Smt Ramakka