Disposed

Sri Pallavi T S v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC23 Nov 2024WP/27738/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Villa purchasers challenged completion certificates issued by MUDA and a private individual, alleging an incomplete project. Noting their consumer complaints and appeals were pending with a review petition before the State Commission, and that they had an alternative remedy, the High Court declined interference and disposed of the petition leaving questions open.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sri Pallavi T S Vs State of Karnataka — Consumer Protection | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:47781 WP No. 27738 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 27738 OF 2024 (LB-RES)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SRI PALLAVI T S W/O SRI. SRIHARSHA B K, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS

¶7

REPRESENTED BY HER GPA MR. KRISHNAKUMAR B N, 117 AND 118, 12TH BLOCK, JANAPRIYA HEAVENS, ALLALASANDRA, GKVK POST, BANGALORE 560065

¶8

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶9

SRI. VASANTH S/O NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, FOF-01, JNANA NIVAS APARTMENT, 5TH STAGE, BEML LAYOUT, RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560098

¶10

…PETITIONERS

¶11

(BY SRI. ROHITH R KAMATH., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560001

¶14

¶15

NC: 2024:KHC:47781 WP No. 27738 of 2024

¶16

MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY- THE COMMISSIONER, JHANSI RANI LAKSHMI BAI ROAD, CHAMRAJAPURA, CHAMARAJAPURAM MOHALLA, LAKSHMIPURAM, MYSURU 570005

¶17

M/S TAPOVAN PROJECTS, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM, HAVING IT'S CORPORATE OFFICE AT 1546, C AND D BLOCK, KUVEMPUNAGAR, MYSURU-570 023

¶18

REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS, K

¶19

SRIRAM, S/O LATE V N KRISHNAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/O NO 104/2, 104/3, 104/4, CARIS BROOK, MADARAGALLI VILLAGE, VARUNA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK, MYSURU 572311, AND

¶20

RAJALAKSHMI A NARAYAN W/O LATE K AJIT NARAYAN, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/O SERENE 7/A, A1 BLOCK, VASU LAYOUT, DATTAGALLI, MYSURU 570022, AND C. BHAVANA RAKER, W/O BRUHAT V RAKER, D/O LATE K AJIT NARAYAN, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/O NO.51 THOROUGH BRED DRIVE, CLYDE NORTH VIC AUSTRALIA-3978 AND

¶21

SRI. ROHAN KRISHNA A N S/O LATE K AJIT NARAYAN, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,

¶22

¶23

NC: 2024:KHC:47781 WP No. 27738 of 2024

¶24

R/O SERENE 7IA, A1 BLOCK, VASU LAYOUT, DATTAGALLI, MYSURU 570022

¶25

HARMONY INTEGRATED SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 2013, HAVING CIN U95000KA2020PTC138621

¶26

REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTORS, WITH REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO. 3070, 3RD STAGE, DATTAGALLI, MYSORE, MYSURU, KARNATAKA, INDIA, 570022, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR

¶27

SRI. A. RAJIV KRISHNA, S/O K SRIRAM, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/O NO 104/2, 104/3, 104/4, CARIS BROOK, MADARAGALLI VILLAGE, VARUNA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK, MYSURU 572311,

¶28

AND ANUPAMA SRIRAM W/O K SRIRAM, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O NO 104/2, 104/3, 104/4, CARIS BROOK, MADARAGALLI VILLAGE, VARUNA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK, MYSURU 572311

¶29

SRI. YOGISH RAO, C/O RAO ASSOCIATES, SHOP NO 6, MYTHRI ARCADE, KANTHARAJ URS ROAD, SARASWATHIPURAM, MYSORE 570009

¶30

…RESPONDENTS

¶31

(BY MS. SPOORTHI V., HCGP FOR R1)

¶32

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC:47781 WP No. 27738 of 2024

¶34

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH/SET ASIDE THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE AT ANNX-M DTD. 14.09.2017 ISSUED BY MYSURU URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, THE R-1; QUASH / SET ASIDE THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE AT ANNX-N DTD. 30.06.24 ISSUED BY MR. YOGISH RAO, THE R- 5.GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO STAY THE OPERATION AND EXECUTION OF THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE AT ANNX-M AND N ISSUED BY THE R-1 AND 5.

¶35

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶36

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶37

ORAL ORDER

¶38

The petitioners have invested with the third respondent to purchase certain Resident Villas [Villas] in the development promoted by this respondent. The petitioners are aggrieved by the Completion Certificate dated 14.09.2017 [ Annexure - M ] issued by the second respondent and the Completion Certificate dated 30.06.2024 [ Annexure -

¶39

¶40

NC: 2024:KHC:47781 WP No. 27738 of 2024

¶41

N ] issued by the fifth respondent [ a private individual ]. The petitioners’ grievance with these impugned Certificates is considered in the backdrop of the following undisputed circumstances.

¶42

The petitioners have filed complaints against the third respondent in C.C. No.90/2021 and C.C. No.61/2021 with the District Consumer Redressal Forum, Mysore [ the District Forum ] under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 [ the Consumer Protection Act ]. The District Forum has allowed these complaints on 22.11.2022 by separate orders directing the third respondent to refund amounts invested by the petitioners [Rs.47,00,000/and Rs.43,00,000/- respectively ] with interest at 10% per annum from the corresponding dates in the year 2016. The District Forum has also awarded compensation towards deficiency in service, mental agony and legal cost observing that if the third respondent fails to refund the amounts directed, it

¶43

¶44

NC: 2024:KHC:47781 WP No. 27738 of 2024

¶45

will be subject to prosecution as contemplated under

¶46

Section 72 of the Consumer Protection Act.

¶47

The third respondent has impugned the District Forum’s orders in Appeal Nos. 82/2023 and 83/2023 with the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru (Additional Bench) [ the State Commission ]. The State Commission has disposed of these appeals on 03.06.2024 modifying the District Forum's decisions directing the third respondent to complete the work within 3 [three] months from the date of receipt of the order and to execute the sale deed giving possession. The State Commission has also awarded compensation in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest at 12% per annum. Meanwhile, the petitioners have filed execution proceedings to enforce the District Forum's decisions. The petitioners apprehend that, with the disposal of their appeals by the State

¶48

¶49

NC: 2024:KHC:47781 WP No. 27738 of 2024

¶50

Commission, they will be compelled to take Villas which are not complete.

¶51

Sri Rohith R. Kamath, the learned counsel

¶52

for the petitioners, submits that the project is far from complete and that the third respondent, acting in cohorts with the other private respondents, has altered the nature of the project and that the second respondent, without examining these circumstances, has issued the impugned Completion Certificate. The learned counsel also submits that the petitioners can

¶53

demonstrate that the second and the fifth

¶54

respondents, acting in collusion with the third respondent, have brought about the impugned Certificates.

¶55

However, Sri Rohith R. Kamath is

¶56

categorical that the petitioners have alternative remedy for redressal of their grievance with the Completion Certificate dated 14.09.2017 issued by the second respondent and that the State

¶57

¶58

NC: 2024:KHC:47781 WP No. 27738 of 2024

¶59

Commission's orders have not attained finality as the petitioners have filed a review petition which is pending consideration. As regards the institution of the review petition and its pendency, the averments in the petition read as under:

¶60

..... Since certain observations have been made in relation to an alleged consent given by the petitioner herein, which in-fact had not been given by them, the petitioners have filed a review petition before the state Commission and the said petition is pending .

¶61

This Court is of the considered view that if the petitioners have an alternative remedy as against the second respondent's Certificate dated 14.09.2017, they must avail such remedy. If the petitioners avail their alternative remedy, the concerned will call for material facts and consider such material for complete adjudication. Insofar as the petitioners being compelled to take possession of the Villas without being complete, this Court must

¶62

¶63

NC: 2024:KHC:47781 WP No. 27738 of 2024

¶64

observe that, with the controversy still pending with their revision petition pending, the petitioners must work out their remedy in such proceedings. As such, this Court concludes that the petitioners have not made out a case for interference, and the petition must be disposed of leaving open all questions to be considered in the appropriate proceedings.

¶65

The petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶66

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶67

RB*

Sri Pallavi T S v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sri Pallavi T S v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt N S Gayathri Vs State of Karnataka

Dr.B. Mahendra Vs the Commissioner

Smt Shakuntala Devi Vs the State of Karnataka

Bishop Angels School Vs Chief Commissioner

G T Bopaiah Vs State of Karnataka

Sri B v Mohana Vs the Commissioner