M/S Anushka Constructions Private Limited Vs State of Karnataka

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:10150 WP No. 4079 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 4079 OF 2025 (GM-POLICE)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

M/S. ANUSHKA CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF COMPANIES ACT 1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO. 100/1, CITY CENTRE, OPP. TOWN HALL, J C ROAD, BENGALURU-560 002 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, MR. ASSARDAS AMARLAL

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. ANGAD KAMATH, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KADUGODI POLICE STATION, OPPOSITE BMTC BUS STAND, KADUGODI COLONY, KADUGODI, BENGALURU-560 067

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI. MOHAMMED JAFFAR SHAH, AGA FOR R1; SRI. ROHAN HOSMATH, ADVOCATE FOR PROPOSED R2)

¶15

2 -

¶16

NC: 2025:KHC:10150 WP No. 4079 of 2025

¶17

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT DATED. 07.02.2025 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-K AND ETC.

¶18

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

¶19

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

The petitioner is before this court calling in question an acknowledgement dated 07.02.2025 issued by the respondent declining to grant police protection to the petitioner.

¶22

Heard Shri Angad Kamath, learned advocate for the petitioner, Shri Mohammed Jaffer Shah, learned AGA for respondent No.1 and Shri Rohan Hosmath, learned advocate for proposed respondent No.2.

¶23

The history to seek police protection is a dispute between the petitioner and the impleading applicant. The petitioner institutes O.S.No.9272 of 2024 seeking inter alia, permanent injunction restraining the defendant/impleading respondent and his men from interfering with the possession over the schedule property. Pending the suit, the petitioner

¶24

3 -

¶25

NC: 2025:KHC:10150 WP No. 4079 of 2025

¶26

files an application in I.A.No.2 on 30-12-2024 seeking temporary injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering with the possession. The concerned Court allows I.A.No.2 and grants exparte ad interim injunction, restraining the defendant from interfering with the petitioner’s possession.

¶27

The defendant entered appearance and filed objection to I.A.No.2. After hearing both the parties, the concerned Court, in terms of its order dated 01-02-2025 allows I.A.No.2 and makes the injunction absolute. Therefore, the legal right of possession during the pendency of the suit stood confirmed.

¶28

Despite the grant of the interim injunction, it is the allegation that the impleading applicant continued to interfere with the petitioner’s possession. Therefore, the petitioner files I.A.No.3 seeking police protection, for implementation of the order of injunction. The impleading applicant files his objections to I.A.No.3 seeking police protection. The concerned Court, after hearing both the parties, allows the application, on the following reasons:

¶29

"On perusal of the above rulings, it is clear that, Civil Court can exercise power under Section 151 of CPC to implement its order. As discussed above, the defendant is

¶30

4 -

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:10150 WP No. 4079 of 2025

¶32

claiming his possession over the suit schedule properties based on the unregistered agreement of sale of the year 2011. The defendant has not explained what steps he has taken in pursuance of the agreement of sale of the year 2011. This Court has passed the Order on IA No.2 filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC against the defendant. It is the duty of the defendant to obey the order of this Court. In the objection, the defendant has not stated that, he is going to obey the order of this Court or he is not going to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule properties. Hence, if the IA No.3 is not allowed, the order of this Court become only the orders in paper. Under Section 151 of CPC, this Court is having inherent powers to issue direction to the Police to implement the orders of this Court. Hence, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and law laid down by the Hon'ble High Courts in the above said judgments, in the considered opinion of this Court, IA No.3 filed by the plaintiff deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, I answer Point No.1 is in the Affirmative.

¶33

POINT No.2: In view of the aforesaid discussions, I proceed to pass the following :-

¶34

ORDER

¶35

I.A.No.3 filed by the plaintiff under Sec. 151 of CPC, is allowed.

¶36

Inspector of Police, Kadugodi Police Station, is directed to desist the unlawful interference of defendant or anybody acting on his behalf over the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule item Nos. 1 to 4 properties."

¶37

The Inspector of Police of Kadugodi Police Station was directed to desist the unlawful interference of the defendant who is the impelading applicant from the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties Item Nos.1 to 4

¶38

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:10150 WP No. 4079 of 2025

¶39

that was in the schedule. The petitioner then submits a representation on 06-02-2025 seeking police protection. The representation is in detail and all the suit schedule properties were mentioned in the representation, to the police station seeking police protection. An acknowledgement comes about on the representation declining to grant police protection and an endorsement is issued to that effect on 07-02-2025, which is impugned in this subject petition.

¶40

One more proceeding is instituted by the impleading applicant, the defendant in O.S.No.9272 of 2024, which is an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC seeking rejection of the plaint. The concerned Court, rejects the application seeking rejection of the plaint. Therefore, the defendant in O.S.No.9272 of 2024, the impleading applicant, suffers two orders.

¶41

Aggrieved by the order on I.A.No.3, granting police protection, the impleading applicant/defendant prefers W.P.No.4740 of 2025. The coordinate bench disposes the said writ petition by the following order:

¶42

"7. The only grievance of the petitioner is that in the guise of implementing the injunction order passed by the

¶43

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:10150 WP No. 4079 of 2025

¶44

Trial Court, the police are trying to dispossess the petitioner-defendant from the suit schedule properties.

¶45

In that view of the matter, this court is of the opinion that the only direction that can be issued at this stage is to direct the Inspector of Police, Kadugodi Police, not to dispossess the parties, who are in possession of the suit schedule properties and not to alter the nature of the suit schedule properties. Accordingly, the following order is passed:

¶46

ORDER

¶47

a) Writ petition is disposed of.

¶48

b) Inspector of Police, Kadugodi Police Station, shall ensure that the order dated 01.02.2025 passed by the Trial Court on I.A.No.3, be complied with. However, in the guise of implementing the said order, he shall not dispossess the parties, who are in possession of the suit schedule properties and shall not alter the nature of the suit schedule properties."

¶49

(Emphasis supplied)

¶50

The coordinate bench clearly holds that the Inspector of Police,

¶51

Kadugodi Police Station shall ensure that the order passed on 01-02-2025 on I.A.No.3 is to be complied with. However, in

¶52

the guise of implementing the order of police protection, the possession should not be disturbed or the party should not be dispossessed is what is observed by the coordinate bench. This would clearly mean that in the guise of giving police protection, the possession of the petitioner should not be disturbed or nature of the property should not be changed. This order has

¶53

7 -

¶54

NC: 2025:KHC:10150 WP No. 4079 of 2025

¶55

become final. In that light, the police cannot now contend that they will not render police protection to the petitioner.

¶56

The petitioner has two orders in his favour, one I.A.No.2 granting temporary injunction after hearing the impleading applicant/defendant. That is challenged before the coordinate bench of this Court in M.F.A.No.6603 of 2024. The matter is yet to come up for its consideration. Therefore, as on today, order on I.A.No.2 is in subsistence. The next order is order on I.A.No.3 seeking police protection, which is not disturbed by the coordinate bench in the order afore-quoted. Therefore, a statutory duty ensues for grant of police protection.

¶57

Learned Additional Government Advocate has filed a memo along with a communication of the petitioner that petitioner was satisfied with the police protection that was granted. The communication of the petitioner reads as follows:

¶58

"To The Inspector of Police, Kadugodi Police Station, Bengaluru

¶59

Sir,

¶60

8 -

¶61

NC: 2025:KHC:10150 WP No. 4079 of 2025

¶62

Sub: Regarding compliance of Order dated 12.02.2025 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W. P. No. 4079/2025 (GM-POLICE)

¶63

With regard to the above subject, we have served the copy of the Hon'ble High Court and as per the directions contained therein, you have provided necessary protection at Item Nos. 1 to 4 of the Suit Schedule Properties from 15.02.2025. Due to the protection you have provided us, we have repaired the metal boundary fence that was damaged by Mr. D. A. Srinivas. In light of the same we have secured the Item Nos. 1 to 4 Suit Schedule Properties from illegal interference and attempted dispossession by Mr. D. A. Srinivas and his henchmen. We have herewith enclosed photographs of the repaired metal boundary fence for your perusal and records.

¶64

We thank you for taking the necessary actions to ensure the security of our possession and enjoyment of the Item Nos. 1 to 4 Suit Schedule Properties. Since the threat by Mr. D. A. Srinivas and his henchmen is a continuous threat, we request you to continue compliance with the Order dated 01.02.2025 in O. S. No. 9272/2024, and continue providing necessary protection to ensure our continued possession and enjoyment of the Item Nos. 1 to 4 Suit Schedule Properties till the disposal of the suit in O. S. No. 9272/2024, and oblige.

¶65

Thanking you,"

¶66

A perusal at the afore-quoted communication nowhere indicates that the petitioner had expressed satisfaction over the

¶67

action taken by the police and therefore would not require police protection in future. The second paragraph therein is clear that continuous police protection for the enjoyment of the suit schedule property in terms of order dated 01-02-2025

¶68

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:10150 WP No. 4079 of 2025

¶69

passed in O.S.No.9272 of 2024 should be granted. Therefore, it would not lie with the state to contend that the petitioner is satisfied with the police protection. Thus, as long as the order of the concerned court which directs police protection and restrains the respondent from interfering with the possession is in subsistence, the police are bound to protect the petitioner’s possession of the suit schedule property, in terms of the orders passed by the concerned Court.

¶70

Learned Counsel further contends that the police have confirmed that the petitioner is in possession on inspection. Be it noted as it is. But the police protection to the property of the petitioner as is directed by the concerned Court shall be given, as long as the orders of the concerned Court quote supra would remain in subsistence.

¶71

Therefore, as a matter of form, the impugned communication dated 07-02-2025 stands quashed and petition stands disposed with the aforesaid observations.

¶72

Sd/(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

¶73

YN/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15

M/S Anushka Constructions Private Limited v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Anushka Constructions Private Limited v. State of Karnataka

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

Vinod Kumar M N Vs Union of India

Mr. Naveen Kumar @ Naveen Vs State of Karnataka

Sujatha Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka

R Venugopal Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Annappa Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Vidyavathi Trading Company Vs Karnataka Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Ltd.