Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

My Sugar Company Ltd., Vs H. T. Annaji — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

Home
Karnataka HC
2025
My Sugar Company Ltd., Vs H. T. AnnajiMy Sugar Company Ltd., v. H. T. Annaji

Disposed¶40

My Sugar Company Ltd., v. H. T. Annaji

Karnataka HC10 Sept 2025WP/24845/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

NC: 2025:KHC:35668; My Sugar Company Ltd. (Government of Karnataka undertaking) v. H.T. Annaji; WRIT PETITION NO. 24845 OF 2024 (GM-CPC); High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru; Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.NAGAPRASANNA; decision date 10 September 2025; filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India; writ of certiorari; registration of execution proceedings Com. Ex. No. 482/2024 (Annexure-B); attachment order dated 23/08/2024 (Annexure-A); attachment warrant of movables without notice; MFA.No.2212/2024; respondent's undertaking not to precipitate matter before executing court; petition disposed with liberty to urge contentions before Appellate Court; no cases cited; no costs or amounts awarded.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief on merits; the petition was disposed reserving liberty to the petitioner to urge all contentions before the Appellate Court in MFA.No.2212/2024.

Why is it important?

In the light of the undertaking given by the respondent not to precipitate the matter before the executing court in the pending MFA.No.2212/2024, the writ petition was unnecessary, as all the petitioner's contentions could be urged before the Appellate Court in MFA.No.2212/2024; reserving such liberty, the petition stood disposed. The Court made no finding on the alleged absence of notice for the attachment of movables. ¶39

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief on merits; the petition was disposed reserving liberty to the petitioner to urge all contentions before the Appellate Court in MFA.No.2212/2024.

Issue for consideration

Whether the registration of execution proceedings in Com. Ex. No. 482/2024 and the attachment order dated 23/08/2024 could stand, the petitioner alleging that the attachment warrant of its movables was ordered without issuing notice to it. +1 more

Ratio / Principle

In the light of the undertaking given by the respondent not to precipitate the matter before the executing court in the pending MFA.No.2212/2024, the writ petition was unnecessary, as all the petitioner's contentions could be urged before the Appellate Court in MFA.No.2212/2024; reserving such liberty, the petition stood disposed. The Court made no finding on the alleged absence of notice for the attachment of movables.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (single Judge, Article 227 jurisdiction): My Sugar Company Ltd., a Government of Karnataka undertaking, sought quashing of the registration of execution proceedings in Com. Ex. No. 482/2024 and setting aside of the attachment order dated 23/08/2024 passed by the Addl. City and Civil and Session Judge, Bengaluru, on the ground that the attachment warrant of its movables was ordered without issuing notice to it. The Court observed that the very petitioner had preferred MFA.No.2212/2024, in which the respondent had given an undertaking not to precipitate the matter before the executing court. Holding that, in that light, the petition was unnecessary since all contentions could be urged before the Appellate Court in MFA.No.2212/2024, the Court disposed of the petition reserving such liberty. No finding was made on the notice objection; no precedents were cited or considered.

A

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:35668 WP No. 24845 of 2024

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 24845 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

MY SUGAR COMPANY LTD., (A GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA UNDERTAKING), SUGAR TOWN, MANDYA - 571 402, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR NAGARAJA H.L.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. KIRAN C.V, ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka

H. T. ANNAJI CLASS-I PWD CONTRACTOR RAVINDRA NAGAR, HASSAN - 573 201.

(BY SRI. K.S. GANESH, ADVOCATE)

…RESPONDENT

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) QUASH THE REGISTRATION OF EXECUTION PROCEEDINGS IN COM. EX. NO. 482/2024 VIDE ANNX-B. B) SET ASIDE THE ATTACHMENT ORDER DATED 23/08/2024 PASSED BY THE HONOURABLE ADDL. CITY AND CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE, BENGALURU IN COM. EX. NO. 482/2024 VIDE ANNX-A AND ETC.,

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

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:35668 WP No. 24845 of 2024

HC-KAR

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner is before this court seeking the following

prayers:

"a) Issue Writ of Certiorari or any other Writ or order this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to quash the registration of Execution Proceedings in Com. Ex. No 482/2024 vide ANNEXURE B.

b) Set aside the Attachment Order dated 23/08/2024 passed by the Honourable Addl. City and Civil and Session Judge Bengaluru in Com. Ex No 482/2024 vide ANNEXURE.A

c) Grant such other reliefs as this Honourable Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of Justice and Equity."

Heard Shri Kiran C.V., learned counsel appearing

for the petitioner and Shri K.S. Ganesh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

The petitioner is on the ground that the attachment warrant of movables of the petitioner is ordered without issuing notice to the petitioner. It transpires that this very petitioner has preferred a miscellaneous first appeal in MFA.No.2212/2024.

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:35668 WP No. 24845 of 2024

HC-KAR

The learned counsel appearing for the respondent

submits that there is an undertaking given by the present respondent that they would not precipitate the matter before

the executing court in the said MFA.No.2212/2024.

In the light of the said undertaking, this petition

would not be necessary, as all these contentions can be urged before the Appellate Court in MFA.No.2212/2024.

Reserving such liberty, the petition stands disposed.

Sd/(M.NAGAPRASANNA)

JUDGE

JY

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7 CT: BHK

Issues for consideration

2 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the registration of execution proceedings in Com. Ex. No. 482/2024 and the attachment order dated 23/08/2024 could stand, the petitioner alleging that the attachment warrant of its movables was ordered without issuing notice to it.medium confidence¶31
2.
Whether the writ petition was necessary in view of the undertaking said to have been given by the respondent in the pending MFA.No.2212/2024.medium confidence¶39
The court held
In the light of the undertaking given by the respondent not to precipitate the matter before the executing court in the pending MFA.No.2212/2024, the writ petition was unnecessary, as all the petitioner's contentions could be urged before the Appellate Court in MFA.No.2212/2024; reserving such liberty, the petition stood disposed. The Court made no finding on the alleged absence of notice for the attachment of movables.ratio¶39

Statutes considered

1 provisions across 1 enactments

AI extract

Constitution of IndiaArticle 227¶17

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Attachment order dated 23/08/2024 passed in Com. Ex. No. 482/2024 (Annexure-A), together with the registration of the execution proceedings in Com. Ex. No. 482/2024 (Annexure-B), sought to be set aside/quashed by the petitioner.¶27
Addl. City and Civil and Session Judge, Bengaluru (executing court) · 23/08/2024
Prior proceeding
This very petitioner had earlier preferred a miscellaneous first appeal in MFA.No.2212/2024, which remains available for urging all contentions before the Appellate Court.¶31
Prior proceeding
Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent had given an undertaking that they would not precipitate the matter before the executing court in the said MFA.No.2212/2024.¶36

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
MY SUGAR COMPANY LTD., (A GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA UNDERTAKING), REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR NAGARAJA H.L.¶9
Kiran C.V
respondent
H. T. ANNAJI CLASS-I PWD CONTRACTOR¶14
K.S. Ganesh

Coram

AI extract

M.NAGAPRASANNAauthor¶22

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Karnataka HC
Decided on: 10 Sept 2025 · September
Registered: 9 Sept 2024
Case no.: WP/24845/2024
CNR: KAHC010524252024
Topic: Writ and Judicial Review
Bench: M.nagaprasanna
Disposal: DISPOSED
Case type: Writ Petition (GM-CPC)

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from M.nagaprasanna

Kamala Vs Sri D Nagendra Kamath
9 Sept 2025
Smt. Lakshmi Vs the Government of Karnataka
9 Sept 2025
Muzammimulla Vs Prestige Jindal City Apartment Owners Association
9 Sept 2025
Sri Ojaiah Vs Smt Sannamma
10 Sept 2025
Sri. H v Rajashekar Rao Vs Smt. Usha
10 Sept 2025
Mrs. Shabana Sharief, Vs Mr. Aboobakkar
10 Sept 2025

Cite this judgement

My Sugar Company Ltd., v. H. T. Annaji, WP/24845/2024 (KA), decided on 10 September 2025.

The High Court of Karnataka publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes1

Constitution of IndiaArticle 227

View all statutes

Procedural history3

Attachment order dated 23/08/2024 passed in Com. Ex. No. 482/2024 (Annexure-A), together with the registration of the execution proceedings in Com. Ex. No. 482/2024 (Annexure-B), sought to be set aside/quashed by the petitioner.Addl. City and Civil and Session Judge, Bengaluru (executing court) · 23/08/2024
This very petitioner had earlier preferred a miscellaneous first appeal in MFA.No.2212/2024, which remains available for urging all contentions before the Appellate Court.
Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent had given an undertaking that they would not precipitate the matter before the executing court in the said MFA.No.2212/2024.

View full history

Bench / Coram

M.NAGAPRASANNA

Parties & counsel