Disposed

M/S Adyar Ananda Bhavan Sweets India Pvt. Ltd. v. the Union of India

Karnataka HC19 Jan 2024WP/1646/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of two writ petitions filed by lessees challenging eviction orders. Recognizing an alternative statutory appeal remedy and allegations of eviction, the Court granted interim protection to one petitioner upon depositing rent and security, directing maintenance of status quo until the appeal was concluded.

What did the court decide?

Interim order directing maintenance of status quo for the petitioner in W.P.1646/2024 subject to deposit of Rs.25 lakhs and continuing rent payment till appeal decided.

M/S Adyar Ananda Bhavan Sweets India Pvt… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:2804 WP No. 1646 of 2024 C/W WP No. 1648 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 1646 OF 2024 (GM-PP)

¶7

C/W

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 1648 OF 2024 (GM-PP)

¶9

IN W.P.No.1646/2024:

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

M/S ADYAR ANANDA BHAVAN SWEETS INDIA PVT LTD

¶12

SITUATED AT NUMBER 65/1 TO 65/4 GUDDAHATTI ROAD, NEARALUR POST, ATTIBELE

¶13

HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK,

¶14

BANGALORE SOUTH - 562 107

¶15

REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED PERSON MR K ANANTHANARAYANAN S/O L KRISHNA IYER, AGED MAJOR REGISTERED UNDER THE PARTNERSHIP ACT 1970.

¶16

…PETITIONER

¶17

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

¶18

(BY SRI. JAYAKUMAR S.PATIL SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. MAHAMAD TAHIR A., ADVOCATE)

¶19

AND:

¶20

THE UNION OF INDIA THE MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS RAISINA ROAD, NEW DELHI -110 001 REP BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶21

RAIL LAND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, NEAR SAFDARJUNG RAILWAY STATION, MOTI BAGH, NEW DELHI - 110 021 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN,

¶22

AND ALSO AT UNIT NO. 702-B, 7TH FLOOR,

¶23

¶24

NC: 2024:KHC:2804 WP No. 1646 of 2024 C/W WP No. 1648 of 2024

¶25

KONNECTUS TOWER-2, DMRC BUILDING, AJMERI GATE, DELHI - 110 002.

¶26

M/S IRCON INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES LIMITED (IRCON SL) GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, SITUATED AT PLOT NUMBER C-4, DISTRICT CENTRE, SAKET, NEW DELHI - 110 017 REP BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

¶27

MR. K. CHANDRA BABU, RESIDENT OF 10, SRI NARAYANA NILAYA, 5TH TEMPLE ROAD, 15TH CROSS, SIDANTHI BLOCK, MALLESWARAM, BENGALURU - 560003.

¶28

THE ADDITIONAL DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER (I AND O)/ MYSORE AND ESTATE OFFICER, MYSURU DIVISION, SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY, MYSORE - 570001.

¶29

…RESPONDENTS

¶30

(BY SRI. SHANTHI BHUSHAN.H., DSGI FOR R-1, R-2 AND R-5; SRI. RAJENDRA PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R-3;

¶31

SRI. JAVEED.S., ADVOCATE FOR R-4)

¶32

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RELEVANT RECORDS PENDING ON THE FILE OF RESPONDENTS AND QUASHING IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 08/01/2024 PASSED BY THE R5-THE ESTATE OFFICER, MYSURU DIVISION, SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY, ADDL DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER, MYSORE - 570001 VIDE ANNEXURE-N, BY TREATING IT AS UNJUST, UNFAIR AND ULTRA VIRES, ETC.

¶33

IN W.P.No.1648/2024:

¶34

BETWEEN:

¶35

M/S K CHANDRA BABU, THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR,

¶36

¶37

NC: 2024:KHC:2804 WP No. 1646 of 2024 C/W WP No. 1648 of 2024

¶38

K CHANDRA BABU SON OF K MUNISWAMY NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, G.P.A. HOLDER THE PETITIONER FORAM, RESIDENT OF NUMBER 10, SRI NARAYANA NILAYA, 5^TH TEMPLE ROAD, 15^TH CROSS, SIDDANTHI BLOCK, MALLESWARAM, BANGALORE-560 003.

¶39

ALSO LEASE HOLDER OF MFC COMPLEX AT MYSURU RAILWAY STATION, MYSORE-570 001.

¶40

…PETITIONER

¶41

(BY SRI. JAYAKUMAR.S.PATIL SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. JAVEED.S., ADVOCATE)

¶42

AND:

¶43

THE UNION OF INDIA THE MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS RAISINA ROAD, NEW DELHI -110 001 REP BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶44

RAIL LAND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, NEAR SAFDARJUNG RAILWAY STATION, MOTI BAGH, NEW DELHI - 110 021 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN,

¶45

AND ALSO AT UNIT NO. 702-B, 7TH FLOOR, KONNECTUS TOWER-2, DMRC BUILDING, AJMERI GATE, DELHI - 110 002.

¶46

M/S IRCON INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES LIMITED (IRCON SL) GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, SITUATED AT PLOT NUMBER C-4, DISTRICT CENTRE, SAKET, NEW DELHI - 110 017 REP BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

¶47

THE ESTATE OFFICER, MYSURU DIVISION,

¶48

¶49

NC: 2024:KHC:2804 WP No. 1646 of 2024 C/W WP No. 1648 of 2024

¶50

SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY, ADDITIONAL DIVISIONAL

¶51

RAILWAY MANAGER, MYSORE-570 001.

¶52

…RESPONDENTS

¶53

(BY SRI. SHANTHI BHUSHAN.H., DSGI FOR R-1, R-2 AND R-4; SRI. RAJENDRA PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R-3)

¶54

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RELEVANT RECORDS PENDING ON THE FILE OF RESPONDENTS AND QUASHING IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 08/01/2024 PASSED BY THE R4-THE ESTATE OFFICER, MYSURU DIVISION, SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY, ADDL DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER, MYSORE - 570001 VIDE ANNEXURE-Q, BY TREATING IT AS UNJUST, UNFAIR AND ULTRA VIRES. IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER CONCERNED ONLY, ETC.

¶55

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶56

ORDER

¶57

In Writ Petition No.1646/2024, the petitioner seeks the

¶58

following prayer:

¶59

“(a) CALL FOR RELEVANT records pending on the file of Respondents.

¶60

(b) ISSUE an order, direction or Writ, in the nature of WRIT OF CERTIORARI, by quashing impugned order dated 08.01.2024 passed by the 5^th Respondent – The Estate Officer, Mysuru Division, South Western Railway, Additional Divisional Railway Manager, Mysore57001 vide Annexure – N, by treating it as unjust, unfair and ultra vires.

¶61

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:2804 WP No. 1646 of 2024 C/W WP No. 1648 of 2024

¶62

(c) And also pass such other order/direction and further orders as may be deemed necessary on the facts and in the circumstances and probabilities of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶63

In Writ Petition No.1648/2024, the petitioner seeks the following prayer:

¶64

“(a) CALL FOR RELEVANT records pending on the file of Respondents.

¶65

(d) ISSUE an order, direction or Writ, in the nature of WRIT OF CERTIORARI, by quashing impugned order dated 08.01.2024 passed by the 4^th Respondent – The Estate Officer, Mysuru Division, South Western Railway, Additional Divisional Railway Manager, Mysore57001 vide Annexure – Q, by treating it as unjust, unfair and ultra vires so far as petitioner only.

¶66

(e) And also pass such other order/direction and further orders as may be deemed necessary on the facts and in the circumstances and probabilities of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶67

Heard Sri Jayakumar S. Patil, learned senior counsel

¶68

for the petitioners, Sri Shanthi Bhushan H., learned Deputy Solicitor General of India for respondents No.1, 2 and 5 in W.P.No.1646/2024 and the respondents No.1, 2 and 4 in W.P.No.1648/2024, Sri Rajendra Prasad, learned counsel for

¶69

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:2804 WP No. 1646 of 2024 C/W WP No. 1648 of 2024

¶70

respondent No.3 in both petitions and Sri Javeed S., learned counsel for respondent No.4 in W.P.No.1646/2024.

¶71

The petitioner in W.P.No.1646/2024 is a lessee from the hands of the fourth respondent, the petitioner in W.P.No.1648/2024. The railways - respondent Nos.1 and 2 enter into a lease in favour of the third respondent. The third respondent is admittedly empowered to sub-lease to another party. It is sublet to the petitioner in W.P.No.1648/2024. The petitioner in W.P.No.1648/2024 further enters into lease with the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner in W.P.No.1648/2024 is presently running the business on the lease entered into between it and the fourth respondent.

¶72

On certain allegations of breach of contract between the third respondent and the fourth respondent, the petitioner in W.P.No.1648/2024 is now sought to be evicted in a proceedings instituted under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’). The petitioner then had knocked at the doors of this Court in W.P.No.16557/2023 wherein, the proceedings instituted under the Act was made subject to the outcome of the said petition.

¶73

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:2804 WP No. 1646 of 2024 C/W WP No. 1648 of 2024

¶74

The outcome is what is impugned in the subject petitions. The petitioner in W.P.No.1646/2024, has a valid lease from the hands of the fourth respondent. It is a dispute between the third respondent and the fourth respondent which is the subject matter of W.P.No.1648/2024.

¶75

The learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, Sri Shanthi Bhushan H., appearing for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 submits that the petitioner in W.P.No.1648/2024 has alternative statutory remedy under Section 9 of the Act against the order impugned in the subject petition.

¶76

The learned senior counsel would admit that the petitioner has alternative remedy of appeal but submit that by the time he would file an appeal, the petitioner would be evicted from the premises.

¶77

Therefore, in order to preserve status quo and also not to cause any loss to the third respondent as the default is by the fourth respondent and not by the petitioner, I deem it appropriate to direct the parties to maintain status quo. Parties I mean, only the petitioner in W.P.1646/2024 and not the petitioner in W.P.No.1648/2024. The possession of the

¶78

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:2804 WP No. 1646 of 2024 C/W WP No. 1648 of 2024

¶79

petitioner in W.P.No.1646/2024 shall not be disturbed subject to the condition that the petitioner would deposit Rs.25/- lakhs with the respondents in the next one week and continue to pay the rental amount that was being paid to the fourth respondent directly to the third respondent. This arrangement shall be continued till the petitioners, if they would avail the remedy of filing an appeal under Section 9 of the Act.

¶80

The interim order shall also continue during the pendency of the appeal, subject to the aforesaid condition and further orders that would be passed by the Appellate Authority. The petitioners are permitted four weeks time to knock at the doors of the Appellate Authority.

¶81

With the aforesaid observations, petitions stand disposed, reserving liberty to the petitioners to knock at the doors of the appropriate fora , in the event they are aggrieved.

¶82

Sd/JUDGE

¶83

HNM

¶84

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31

M/S Adyar Ananda Bhavan Sweets India Pvt. Ltd. v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Adyar Ananda Bhavan Sweets India Pvt. Ltd. v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr Channamuniyappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Maruthi Meenugarara Sahakar Sangha Baguru Ni Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Rama Hitech Power Tech Vs the Authorized Officer City Union Bank Ltd.

M/S Rama Hi Power Tech Vs the Authorized Officer City Union Bank Ltd.

Sri Sampath Kumar S Vs the Authorized Officer/ Manager Canara Bank

Sri. Sreedhar Venkatraman Vs the Secretary