Smt. Pushpalatha J Jogottu Vs Sri. Lakshmisha

¶1

1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶6

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 912 OF 2025 (DEC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

1 . SMT. PUSHPALATHA J. JOGOTTU AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS D/O BHAVANI NARAYANA RESIDING AT NO.3, GURUDATTA NILAYA NEAR SRIVIDYA PUBLIC SCHOOL TUNGANAGARA, HAROHALLI NEW EXETENSION BENGALURU-560091.

¶9

...APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. NAVEEN .G.S, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

1 . SRI. LAKSHMISHA THE RETURNING OFFICER BILLAVA ASSOCIATION BENGALURU BILLAVA BHAVANA NO.63 BANNERGHATTA ROAD HULIMAVU, BENGALURU -560076.

¶13

2 . BILLAVA ASSOCIATION BENGALURU A SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE KARNATAKA SOCIETY REGISTRATION ACT ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE AT

¶14

2

¶15

BILLAVA BHAVANA, NO.63 BANNERGHATTA ROAD, HULIMAVU BENGALURU-560 076. REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY.

¶16

3 . SRI. VEDAKUMAR .M PRESIDENT MAJOR BILLAVA ASSOCIATION BENGALURU, BILLAVA BHAVANA NO.63, BANNERGHATTA ROAD HULIMAVU, BENGALURU-560 076.

¶17

4 . SRI. KESHAV POOJARI SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT MAJOR BILLAVA ASSOCIATION, BENGALURU BILLAVA BHAVANA, NO.63 BANNERGHATTA ROAD, HULIMAVU BENGALURU - 560 076.

¶18

5 . SMT. JAYANTH VIJAYAKRISHNA VICE PRESIDENT MAJOR BILLAVA ASSOCIATION, BENGALURU BILLAVA BHAVANA, NO.63 BANNERGHATTA ROAD, HULIMAVU BENGALURU-560 076.

¶19

6 . SRI. SAMPATH KUMAR .D.N GENERAL SECRTARY MAJOR BILLAVA ASSOCIATION, BENGALURU BILLAVA BHAVANA, NO.63 BANNERGHATTA ROAD, HULIMAVU BENGALURU-560 076.

¶20

3

¶21

7 . SRI. DAMODAR .M.K JOINT SECRETARY MAJOR BILLAVA ASSOCIATION BENGALURU, BILLAVA BHAVANA NO.63, BANNERGHATTA ROAD HULIMAVU, BENGALURU-560 076.

¶22

8 . SRI. JAYANANDA POOJARI TREASURER MAJOR BILLAVA ASSOCIATION, BENGALURU BILLAVA BHAVANA, NO.63 BANNERGHATTA ROAD, HULIMAVU BENGALURU - 560 076.

¶23

9 . SRI. J. NARAYANA POOJARI ORGANIZING SECRETARY MAJOR BILLAVA ASSOCIATION, BENGALURU BILLAVA BHAVANA, NO.63 BANNERGHATTA ROAD, HULIMAVU BENGALURU-560 076.

¶24

10 . SRI. SATISH POOJARI EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBER MAJOR BILLAVA ASSOCIATION, BENGALURU BILLAVA BHAVANA, NO.63 BANNERGHATTA ROAD, HULIMAVU BENGALURU - 560 076.

¶25

11 . SRI. SATISH POOJARI EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBER MAJOR BILLAVA ASSOCIATION, BENGALURU BILLAVA BHAVANA, NO.63

¶26

4

¶27

BANNERGHATTA ROAD, HULIMAVU BENGALURU - 560 076.

¶28

12 . SRI. KRISHNA POOJARI EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBER MAJOR BILLAVA ASSOCIATION, BENGALURU BILLAVA BHAVANA, NO.63 BANNERGHATTA ROAD, HULIMAVU BENGALURU-560 076.

¶29

13 . SRI. SUDHAKARA BHANGERA .K EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBER MAJOR BILLAVA ASSOCIATION, BENGALURU BILLAVA BHAVANA, NO.63 BANNERGHATTA ROAD, HULIMAVU BENGALURU - 560 076.

¶30

14 . SRI. K.VIJAYA POOJARI EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBER MAJOR BILLAVA ASSOCIATION, BENGALURU BILLAVA BHAVANA, NO.63 BANNERGHATTA ROAD, HULIMAVU BENGALURU - 560 076.

¶31

15 . SRI. SHIVANANDA SALKAN EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBER MAJOR BILLAVA ASSOCIATION, BENGALURU BILLAVA BHAVANA, NO.63 BANNERGHATTA ROAD, HULIMAVU BENGALURU - 560 076.

¶32

16 . SRI. ADARSHA .N EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBER MAJOR

¶33

5

¶34

BILLAVA ASSOCIATION, BENGALURU BILLAVA BHAVANA, NO.63 BANNERGHATTA ROAD, HULIMAVU BENGALURU - 560 076.

¶35

17 . SRI. LOKNATH MAJOR EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBER BILLAVA ASSOCIATION, BENGALURU BILLAVA BHAVANA, NO.63 BANNERGHATTA ROAD, HULIMAVU BENGALURU-560 076.

¶36

18 . SRI. NAGESH .K EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBER MAJOR BILLAVA ASSOCIATION, BENGALURU BILLAVA BHAVANA, NO.63 BANNERGHATTA ROAD, HULIMAVU BENGALURU-560 076.

¶37

19 . RAVINDRA S. KOTIYAN EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBER MAJOR BILLAVA ASSOCIATION, BENGALURU BILLAVA BHAVANA, NO.63 BANNERGHATTA ROAD, HULIMAVU BENGALURU - 560 076.

¶38

20 . SRI. BHASKAR POOJARI EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBER MAJOR BILLAVA ASSOCIATION, BENGALURU BILLAVA BHAVANA, NO.63 BANNERGHATTA ROAD, HULIMAVU BENGALURU-560 076.

¶39

6

¶40

21 . SRI. SURESH KUMAR .H EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBER MAJOR BILLAVA ASSOCIATION, BENGALURU BILLAVA BHAVANA, NO.63 BANNERGHATTA ROAD, HULIMAVU BENGALURU-560 076.

¶41

22 . SRI. M JAYARAM SUVARNA EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBER MAJOR BILLAVA ASSOCIATION, BENGALURU BILLAVA BHAVANA, NO.63 BANNERGHATTA ROAD, HULIMAVU BENGALURU - 560 076.

¶42

23 . SRI. K. SATISH POOJARI EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBER MAJOR BILLAVA ASSOCIATION, BENGALURU BILLAVA BHAVANA, NO.63 BANNERGHATTA ROAD, HULIMAVU BENGALURU-560 076.

¶43

24 . SRI. BALACHANDRA .B.S EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBER MAJOR BILLAVA ASSOCIATION, BENGALURU BILLAVA BHAVANA, NO.63 BANNERGHATTA ROAD, HULIMAVU BENGALURU-560 076.

¶44

25 . SRI. MOHAN POOJARI .B EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBER MAJOR BILLAVA ASSOCIATION, BENGALURU BILLAVA BHAVANA, NO.63

¶45

7

¶46

BANNERGHATTA ROAD, HULIMAVU BENGALURU - 560 076.

¶47

26 . SRI. CHIDANANDA BANGERA EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBER MAJOR BILLAVA ASSOCIATION, BENGALURU BILLAVA BHAVANA, NO.63 BANNERGHATTA ROAD, HULIMAVU BENGALURU-560076.

¶48

27 . SRI. H.B.KRISHNA EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBER MAJOR BILLAVA ASSOCIATION, BENGALURU BILLAVA BHAVANA, NO.63 BANNERGHATTA ROAD, HULIMAVU BENGALURU - 560 076.

¶49

28 . SRI. SANJEEV POOJARI EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBER MAJOR BILLAVA ASSOCIATION, BENGALURU BILLAVA BHAVANA, NO.63 BANNERGHATTA ROAD, HULIMAVU BENGALURU-560 076.

¶50

29 . SRI. MAHENDRA BETTEMAR EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBER MAJOR BILLAVA ASSOCIATION, BENGALURU BILLAVA BHAVANA, NO.63 BANNERGHATTA ROAD, HULIMAVU BENGALURU - 560 076.

¶51

30 . S. VISHWANATH POOJARI EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBER BILLAVA ASSOCIATION, BENGALURU

¶52

8

¶53

BILLAVA BHAVANA, NO.63 BANNERGHATTA ROAD, HULIMAVU BENGALURU - 560 076.

¶54

31 . SMT. JALAJA EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBER (RESERVED-WOMAN) MAJOR BILLAVA ASSOCIATION, BENGALURU BILLAVA BHAVANA, NO.63 BANNERGHATTA ROAD, HULIMAVU BENGALURU-560 076.

¶55

32 . SMT. HARINAAKSHI EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBER (RESERVED-WOMAN) MAJOR BILLAVA ASSOCIATION, BENGALURU BILLAVA BHAVANA, NO.63 BANNERGHATTA ROAD, HULIMAVU BENGALURU-560 076.

¶56

33 . SMT. VIMALA B. POOJARI EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBER (RESERVED-WOMAN) MAJOR BILLAVA ASSOCIATION BENGALURU BILLAVA BHAVANA, NO.63 BANNERGHATTA ROAD HULIMAVU BENGALURU - 560 076.

¶57

34 . SMT. RATHNA JAYARAM EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBER (RESERVED-WOMAN) MAJOR BILLAVA ASSOCIATION BENGALURU BILLAVA BHAVANA, NO.63 BANNERGHATTA ROAD

¶58

9

¶59

HULIMAVU BENGALURU - 560 076.

¶60

…RESPONDENTS

¶61

(BY SMT. VEENA .T.N, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND C/R2; V.O.D 08.04.2025 NOTICE TO R3 AND R34 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶62

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 05.02.2025 PASSED ON IA NO. 3 IN OS.NO.7045/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE XXIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, ALLOWING THE IA NO. 3 FILED U/O VII RULE 11(a) OF SEC. 151 OF CPC FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT.

¶63

THIS RFA HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 08.07.2025, THIS DAY JUDGMENT WAS PRONOUNCED THEREIN, AS UNDER:

¶64

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶65

C.A.V. JUDGMENT

¶66

The captioned appeal is by the plaintiff assailing the order of rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC).

¶67

For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.

¶68

The facts leading to the case are as under:

¶69

10

¶70

The plaintiff instituted the suit seeking a declaration that Instruction No.4 dated 24.08.2022, issued by defendant No.1/Returning Officer, is illegal and unenforceable, inasmuch as it restricted members from contesting the elections held during the 23rd Annual General Meeting. The plaintiff has further sought a consequential declaration that the election of defendants No.3 to 34 is null and void.

¶71

The plaintiff has specifically pleaded that the Returning Officer, by misinterpreting the amended byelaws, issued Instruction No.4 dated 24.08.2022, whereby the right to contest the election was confined only to members who were part of the executive committee during the period 2016–17 to 2021–22. The plaintiff’s primary grievance is that such restriction excluded all other eligible members from filing nomination papers, thereby rendering them ineligible. It is contended that this action vitiates the electoral process and forms the basis for seeking a

¶72

11

¶73

declaration that the election of defendants No.3 to 34 be declared null and void.

¶74

On receipt of summons, defendant No.2/General Secretary filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(a) of CPC, seeking rejection of the plaint, contending that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action.

¶75

The learned Trial Judge, proceeding on the assumption that the plaintiff has not pleaded how she is personally aggrieved by the elections, nor disclosed the cause of action for filing the suit, allowed the application and rejected the plaint on the ground that it does not disclose a cause of action. The said order is under challenge in this appeal.

¶76

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff and the learned counsel representing the defendants.

¶77

12

¶78

8. The following points arise for consideration in

¶79

this appeal:

¶80

"(i) Whether the Trial Court erred in rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the CPC on the ground that the plaint does not disclose how the plaintiff is aggrieved by the elections, and therefore, fails to disclose a cause of action?

¶81

(ii) Whether the finding of the Trial Court that the plaint does not indicate whether the plaintiff was an aspiring candidate is sustainable in law?"

¶82

FINDING ON POINT Nos.(i) and (ii):

¶83

Before proceeding to examine the issues arising in the present case, this Court finds it appropriate to extract paragraphs 3 to 6 of the affidavit filed in support of the application, which read as follows:

¶84

"3. I submit that, after a detailed and vigilant reading of the plaint it is noticed that the plaint does

¶85

13

¶86

not disclose the alleged right of the plaintiff and its alleged violation. Nowhere in the plaint, the plaintiff has attempted to aver that the impugned election proceedings has violated her rights much less as not even spelled out what is her personal grievance to approach this Hon'ble Court seeking the relief declaration.

¶87

4. I am instructed to state that, cause of action being bundle of facts which necessitates and decides the right of a person it is mandate on the part of the plaintiff to mention the same. Order VI of Code of Civil Procedure mandates that each and every detail as to the right and its infringement needs to be specifically averred which would assist the court to analyse or to decide whether the relief so sort for can be granted of not.

¶88

5. I submit that, it is in this backdrop there being absolutely no whisper in the plaint as to what right the plaintiff has and what right is allegedly infringed no relief could be granted and plaint is liable to be rejected for want of cause of action. Moreover, the cause of action which is mentioned in Para 10 of the plaint being frivolous, vexatious and not disclosing the right of the plaintiff and the alleged breach of right cannot be looked into. The plaintiff clearly failed to

¶89

14

¶90

establish her right to sue against the association and as such, the plaint requires to be rejected for not disclosing the cause of action.

¶91

6. I submit that, the plaintiff who is not even active member of the association and never actively participated in the largescale welfare activities undertaken by the association has filed this frivolous suit at the behest of the disgruntled elements who had earlier tried to harass and pester the association by filing a suit in O.S 6961/2019. The plaintiff who has neither contested the election nor actively, participated in the management of the association for the past 5 decades has filed the instant frivolous suit without disclosing a right to sue against the defendants and hence the plaint is liable to be rejected."

¶92

The gist of the plaint averments would also be relevant. Accordingly, paras 8 to 10 would be relevant, the same are extracted as under:

¶93

"8. It is submitted that, the very election of the Defendant No.3 to 34 is unlawful as the very the Instruction issued by the 1^st Defendant is unheard off, contrary to the bye-laws of the 2^nd

¶94

15

¶95

Defendant Society as such has deprived other eligible members from contesting the election held for the posts of members of Executive Committee and Office bearers as the instructions issued by the 1^st Defendant herein allowed only those members who were the members of the Executive Committee and the Office bearers for the Last two terms to contest the elections.

¶96

9. It is submitted that, aggrieved by the very act of issuance of the aforesaid instructions and subsequent declaration of results by the 1^st Defendant declaring the 3^rd Defendant to as 34^th Defendant as Office bearers and members of the Central Executive Committee of the 2^nd Defendant Committee has approached this Hon'ble Court by filing this suit.

¶97

10. The cause of action arose on 24.08.2022, where the 1^st Defendant issued the instructions as to the eligibility of members to file nomination and contest the elections conducted for the posts of 2^nd Defendant Society and subsequently on 10.09.2022 when the 1st

¶98

16

¶99

Defendant declared Defendant No.3 to Defendant 34 as elected persons for the respective posts."

¶100

The prayer sought in the plaint is also extracted as under:

¶101

"WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs most humbly prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to-

¶102

i. Declare that the instructions No.04 dated 24.08.2022 issued by the 1st Defendant as a procedure and part of 43rd Annual General Meeting and Election for the term 2022-23 to 2024-25 Null and Void.

¶103

ii. Consequently declare that the election of Defendant No.3 to 34 as null and void.

¶104

iii. Pass such other orders as this Hon'ble Authority deems fit to grant in the interest of justice and equity."

¶105

On a careful and holistic reading of the plaint averments and the reliefs sought, it is evident that the plaint discloses the foundational facts necessary to

¶106

17

¶107

constitute a cause of action. The plaintiff has categorically averred that she is a member of the Billava Association and has challenged the conduct of elections on the ground that the Returning Officer, by misinterpreting the amended byelaws, restricted eligibility to only those members who served on the Executive Committee during the years 2016 to 2022. It is pleaded that this exclusion has unlawfully deprived other eligible members of the Association from filing their nominations and participating in the electoral process.

¶108

The core grievance of the plaintiff is that the impugned instruction issued by defendant No.1 has resulted in a discriminatory eligibility criterion, limiting the pool of contesting candidates and thereby violating the democratic character of the elections. The challenge is not merely academic but relates to the validity and legality of an instruction that directly affects the rights of members at

¶109

18

¶110

large, including the plaintiff, to participate in the

¶111

governance of the Association.

¶112

It is a settled principle of law that a plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the CPC, only when it does not disclose any cause of action whatsoever. The term “cause of action” refers to a bundle of essential facts which, if traversed, entitle the plaintiff to a judgment in his or her favour. It is not necessary for the plaintiff to prove the facts at this stage; rather, it is sufficient if the plaint discloses a clear right asserted by the plaintiff and its corresponding violation by the defendants. Unless the plaint is so vague or bereft of any material facts that no relief can be granted even if the facts are assumed to be true, the Court cannot resort to the extreme measure of rejection under Order VII Rule 11(a) of CPC.

¶113

It is a fundamental principle of civil procedure that an application under Order VII Rule 11(a) of CPC, must

¶114

19

¶115

be considered prior to the commencement of the trial. Once the trial has commenced, such an application loses its legal footing and cannot be entertained, as it would defeat the very object and scheme of the Code, which seeks to ensure that preliminary objections regarding maintainability are resolved at the threshold. The purpose of Order VII Rule 11 of CPC is to prevent vexatious or meritless litigation from proceeding to trial; therefore, it is intended to operate at the initial stage, based solely on the averments in the plaint, without reference to the defence or evidence. Entertaining an application for rejection of plaint at a belated stage, particularly after commencement of trial, amounts to subverting the process of adjudication and reopening matters which should have been resolved at the outset. This Court in numerous judgments has clearly held that “the basic question to be decided while dealing with an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC is whether a real cause of action is set out in the plaint or something purely

¶116

20

¶117

illusory". The direction for scrutiny is the averments in the plaint, not the defence taken. Once the trial has commenced, the question of rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) of CPC would not arise. This principle was also affirmed in the case of Frost International Limited .vs. Milan Developers and Builders¹ where the Apex Court cautioned against entertaining belated applications for rejection of plaint. In the present case, as the trial has already commenced, and issues are framed, entertaining such an application would not only be procedurally erroneous but would also amount to shortcircuiting the trial process and prejudicing the plaintiff’s right to lead evidence. Therefore, on this ground alone, the impugned order rejecting the plaint is liable to be set aside as being legally unsustainable.

¶118

It is equally well-settled that the power to reject a plaint must be exercised sparingly and only in clear cases,

¶119

1 2022 (8) SCC 633

¶120

21

¶121

where the Court is satisfied that even if all averments in the plaint are taken at face value, they do not disclose any right to sue. In the present case, the learned Trial Judge has proceeded to reject the plaint on the ground that the plaintiff has not demonstrated any personal grievance or locus. However, such a consideration goes into the merits of the case and requires adjudication after trial. It is not open to the Court to embark upon an inquiry into the plaintiff’s eligibility or entitlement at the stage of considering an application under Order VII Rule 11(a) of CPC. The Court must only examine the averments in the plaint, and not the defence raised.

¶122

In the instant case, paragraphs 8 to 10 of the plaint explicitly set out the plaintiff’s grievance, the impugned instruction, and the consequential election result that is challenged. The plaintiff has clearly alleged that her right, along with that of other eligible members, to participate in the election has been infringed. The trial

¶123

22

¶124

Court’s finding is that the plaintiff has not disclosed how she is aggrieved or her right to sue is a misreading of the plaint and reflects a premature evaluation of the merits. Such an approach is legally untenable and fundamentally flawed. Therefore, this Court holds that the impugned order rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) of CPC, is unsustainable in law and deserves to be set aside.

¶125

Accordingly, the point No.1 is answered in the

¶126

affirmative and point No.2 is answered in the negative.

¶127

Conclusions:

¶128

(i) In light of the foregoing discussion, this Court is

¶129

of the considered view that the Trial Court has committed a serious error in summarily rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The plaint, on a plain reading, discloses a clear cause of action and asserts

¶130

a right on the part of the plaintiff, as a member of the association, to challenge the legality of the election process

¶131

23

¶132

and the impugned instruction that allegedly curtailed the right of eligible members to contest.

¶133

(ii) The Trial Court, instead of confining itself to the limited scope of Order VII Rule 11(a), has ventured into the realm of disputed facts and drawn conclusions on the plaintiff’s locus and entitlement without affording an opportunity for adjudication on merits. Such an approach is impermissible at the threshold stage. It is well-settled that the power to reject a plaint is to be exercised sparingly and only in cases where the plaint, even if taken at face value, does not disclose a cause of action at all.

¶134

(iii) In the present case, the plaintiff has challenged the legality of a specific election-related instruction and sought declaratory reliefs with respect to the election outcome. These averments, read as a whole, are sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Therefore, the Trial Court’s reasoning is unsustainable in law and suffers from perversity, warranting interference by this Court.

¶135

24

¶136

19. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to

¶137

pass the following:

¶138

ORDER

¶139

(i) The appeal is allowed.

¶140

(ii) The order dated 5.2.2025 passed by the learned Trial Judge in O.S. No.7045/2022, rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 is hereby set aside.

¶141

(iii) The suit is restored to the file of the Trial Court for adjudication on merits, in accordance with law.

¶142

(iv) Since parties are represented by their respective counsel they are directed to appear before the Court on 6.8.2025 without expecting fresh summons.

¶143

(v) No order as to costs.

¶144

Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶145

ALB

Smt. Pushpalatha J Jogottu v. Sri. Lakshmisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Pushpalatha J Jogottu v. Sri. Lakshmisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Federation of Residents Community Entities Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Govindaiah N Vs the Karnataka Housing Board

Mr. Oswald Dsilva Vs the Commissioner

Hanumanthappa Vs B. Rudrappa

Rangaiah Vs Thimmakka

Murugan P Vs the Chief Commissioner