Mr. Kiran. M Vs Vijayanagara Club

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:46283 WP No. 33705 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 33705 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MR. KIRAN M. SON OF LATE MUKUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.178 7^TH CROSS, 5^TH B MAIN RPC LAYOUT VIJAYANAGAR 2^ND STAGE BENGALURU- 560 040.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI K.S.HARISH, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

VIJAYANAGARA CLUB A SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE KARNATAKA SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1960 NO. 1-4, 1^ST MAIN Digitally signed 4^TH 'A' CROSS, HAKKA ROAD by HAMPINAGARA GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA VIJAYNAGARA 2^ND STAGE GUPTA BENGALURU- 560 104 SREENATH REPRESENTED BY ITS Location: HIGH MANAGING COMMITTEE COURT OF PRESIDENT AND SECRETARY KARNATAKA

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH BY WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF WRIT, THE ORDER DATED 31.10.2025 PASSED BY XIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND

¶15

2 -

¶16

NC: 2025:KHC:46283 WP No. 33705 of 2025

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH-28) IN REFUSING TO GRANT AN AD-INTERIM EX-PARTE ORDER OF TEMPORARY INJUNCTION ON I.A.NO.1 AND I.A.NO.2 IN O.S.NO.7568/2025, PER ANNEXURE A AND ETC.

¶19

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

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

Heard learned counsel for petitioner.

¶23

Learned counsel for petitioner restricts this petition to the order passed on IA.No.1 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC and seeks liberty to file a separate petition on the order passed on IA.No.2 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC for altering or in any manner changing the physical nature of the suit schedule property.

¶24

This petition is filed by the petitioner-plaintiff seeking following reliefs:

¶25

"WHEREFORE, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to grant the following relief:

¶26

a) Quash by writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order direction in the

¶27

3 -

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:46283 WP No. 33705 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

nature of writ, the order dated 31.10.2025 passed by the XIV Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore (CCH-28) in refusing to grant an AdInterim Ex-parte Order of Temporary Injunction on I.A no.1 & I.A No.2 in O.S No.7568/2025, per Annexure A;

¶31

b) Consequently grant an order of ex-parte ad-interim order as prayed for on I.A No.1 (Annexure 'L') & I.A No.2 (Annexure 'M') in O.S No.7568/2025 on the file of the XIV Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore (CCH-28);

¶32

c) Such other and further relief as may be just and necessary in the interest of justice."

¶33

The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.7568/2025.

¶34

He filed a suit for declaration to declare that the Special General Body Meeting of the respondent-Society held on 28.09.2025 and all acts done in pursuance of the said meeting are illegal and other consequential reliefs. Along with the plaint, the plaintiff filed two applications under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC.

¶35

4 -

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:46283 WP No. 33705 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

It is the grievance of the petitioner that the Managing Committee of the respondent-Society issued a notice calling for a Special General Body Meeting that was scheduled to be held on 28.09.2025 at 10.00 a.m. at Chikkanna Auditorium, Bengaluru. He further contends that the said notice is defective for the reason that Rules 31(3) and 33 of the Bye-laws prescribes clear 21 days notice excluding the date of the meeting for considering amendment or alterations or substitution of any clause of the Bye-laws.

¶39

Learned counsel for petitioner further contends

¶40

that the respondent-Society listed Agenda No.3 proposed several major amendments to the Bye-laws as stated in the notice includes enrollment of new membership (Rules 4 and 6), revision in subscription fees (Rule 15), coverage charge (Rule 15) and changes to the management rules (Rule 21) etc. Further, Agenda No.4 for construction of multi-level car parking on the existing car parking area as well as existing Tennis Courts and construction of a new

¶41

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:46283 WP No. 33705 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

Tennis Court on the first floor of the proposed multi-level car parking area. The meeting specifically prescribed that the approval for work at Agenda No.4 regarding the construction of multi-level car parking would be taken in the next Annual General Body Meeting.

¶44

It is also contended that the Special General Body Meeting was held on 28.09.2025. When Agenda Nos.3 and 4 were taken up for discussion, several members of the respondent-Society including the petitioner opposed both the proposal and Agenda No.4, as it involved the demolition of two Clay Tennis Courts and the construction of the multi-level car parking on the said place and further, construction of a new Tennis Court on the first floor, are all contrary to the purpose and intent, for which,

¶45

the Civic Amenity Site was allotted by the Bengaluru Development Authority.

¶46

It is also contended by the learned counsel that despite the said opposition by the members, the Managing

¶47

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:46283 WP No. 33705 of 2025

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

Committee of the respondent-Society without allowing the members to voice out their dissent or recording their dissent, hurriedly passed the resolution in an undemocratic manner and the number of dissenting votes by members was also not counted/recorded before passing any resolution.

¶50

Learned counsel further contends that the amendment so sought for in the Bye-laws has not been approved by the Registrar. It has not followed the necessary provisions of the Acts and the Rules of the Byelaws for approval of the said amendment. Prior to which, the respondent-Society has issued an advertisement in the newspaper calling for tender for construction of multi-level car parking at the cost of about Rs.4,00,00,000/-.

¶51

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the laying of foundation stone rituals (Guddali Pooja) is scheduled to be conducted on 10.11.2025. Therefore, he contends that the entire process followed by the

¶52

7 -

¶53

NC: 2025:KHC:46283 WP No. 33705 of 2025

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

respondent-Society for the purpose of amendment of the Bye-laws is not yet completed by virtue of which the laying of foundation stone ceremony is now sought to be undertaken without following due process of law, provisions of the Act and rules of the bye-laws.

¶56

The petitioner having filed the suit for relief of declaration with regard to the General Body Meeting to be declared as invalid, has also filed an application in I.A.No.1 not to give effect to the said resolutions passed in the General Body Meeting. The same has not been considered by the trial Court and emergent notice has been issued on the said IA.No.1 along with IA.No.2. Therefore, aggrieved by the non-granting of any ad-interim order in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶57

Apparently, it is seen from the order sheet of the

¶58

trial Court that emergent notice has been issued on IA.Nos.1 and 2, but notice is yet to be served on the respondent-defendant before the trial Court.

¶59

8 -

¶60

NC: 2025:KHC:46283 WP No. 33705 of 2025

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

This Court does not find any need or necessity to issue notice to the respondent, as no notice is served to the respondent before the trial Court yet. This Court is inclined to grant an ad-interim order in favour of the petitioner-plaintiff in view of the urgency and to direct the trial Court to dispose of the matter expeditiously upon service of notice and appearance of the defendant before the trial Court.

¶63

The petitioner is a member of the respondentSociety and several allegations are made against the respondent-Society for not having complied the rules and regulations with regard to calling for the Special General Body meeting, so also, the resolution that are passed without obtaining the necessary mandate and not taking the dissenting votes.

¶64

It is contended by learned counsel for petitioner that pursuant to the notice issued and the amendment to the Bye-laws, neither the same has been approved nor it

¶65

9 -

¶66

NC: 2025:KHC:46283 WP No. 33705 of 2025

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

is called for in the next General Body Meeting approving the said amendment, which is the subject matter of the suit as well as the application seeking urgent interim protection, as the respondent-Society is now venturing into issuance of a tender for construction of the multi-level car parking and setting up a clay Tennis Court in the first floor, which is in pursuance to the Special General Body Meeting. Therefore, prima facie case is made out by the petitioner for grant of an order in his favour.

¶69

As urgency is shown by the petitioner-plaintiff, the delay of issuance of notice would certainly cause loss and damage to the petitioner and by then, the work would have commenced, which would lead to the application being frustrated. There are certain triable issues in the said application that needs to be considered. Therefore, the defendant would have to appear and to be heard and decided thereafter. Till then, if an interim order is not granted, then the purpose of filing the application and so

¶70

10 -

¶71

NC: 2025:KHC:46283 WP No. 33705 of 2025

¶72

HC-KAR

¶73

also the suit would get frustrated and more so irreparable

¶74

injury hardship, damage to property would be caused.

¶75

Under these circumstances, prima facie case is

¶76

made out by the petitioner-plaintiff; the balance of inconvenience tilts in his favour, so also, the irreparable hardship would be caused to the petitioner, if the application is not considered prior to issuance of notice

¶77

and delay would cause hardship, hindrance and damage to the property, i.e., the Society's property.

¶78

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶79

ORDER

¶80

i. This petition is disposed of;

¶81

ii. The respondent-defendant is restrained from

¶82

altering or changing the physical nature of the suit schedule property or amenities of the suit

¶83

schedule property, till next date of hearing;

¶84

11 -

¶85

NC: 2025:KHC:46283 WP No. 33705 of 2025

¶86

HC-KAR

¶87

iii. The trial Court is at liberty to hear the respondent-defendant and pass suitable orders

¶88

on appearance on the said application;

¶89

iv. It is made clear that this Court has passed this

¶90

order solely for the purpose of grant of ad interim order of temporary Injunction till the next date of hearing;

¶91

v. The trial Court is at liberty to hear the matter without being influenced by the opinion expressed by this Court, which is done solely for the purpose of issuance of an ad interim order;

¶92

vi. Petitioner-plaintiff to comply Order XXXIX Rule 3 of CPC.

¶93

Sd/(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE

¶94

CPN

¶95

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1

Mr. Kiran. M v. Vijayanagara Club

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Kiran. M v. Vijayanagara Club

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Bharath Jaganathan Vs Senthil

Sri Muniyappa Vs Sri Venkateshappa Alias Mariyappa

Miss. Ramola. U. S. Vs Sri. B. I. Hemanth Kumar

Sakamma Vs Nagesha

N C Venkatesh Vs J Shashirekha

Sri Jayarama Vs Sri Arunkumar H R