The Bommasandra Industries Vs Canara Bank

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:25329 W.P. No.52306/2018

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

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

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.52306/2018 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

THE BOMMASANDRA INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION (REGD) K.I.A.D.B. COMPLEX, 2ND FLOOR BOMMASANDRA INDUSTRIAL AREA HOSUR ROAD, BANGALORE 560 009 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT SRI. DAYANANDA.

¶8

Digitally signed SRI. DAYANANDA. by RUPA V Location: High (BY SRI. V. SHIVAKUMAR, ADV.,) Court of karnataka

¶9

AND:

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

CANARA BANK SME BRANCH, BOMMASANDRA HOSUR MAIN ROAD ATTIBELEL HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE 560009 REP. BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER.

¶12

BOMMASANDRA INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION (REGD) (BIA) REPRESENTED BY SRI. MURALIDHAR EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBER R/AT:NO.256, 1ST CROSS TEACHERS COLONY CHANDAPURA, ATTIBELE HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE 560081 (IMPLEADING APPLICANT)

¶13

…RESPONDENTS

¶14

(BY SRI. M.S. VINAYAKA, ADV., FOR R1 SRI. M.R. RAJAGOPAL, SR. ADV., FOR SRI. P. ANAND, ADV., FOR R2)

¶15

2 -

¶16

NC: 2025:KHC:25329 W.P. No.52306/2018

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DT 1.8.18 ON I.A. PASSED BY THE HON'BLE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JDUGE AND JMFC, ANEKAL IN O.S.NO.492/17 AT ANNEXURE-H, ON THE APPLICATION FILED BY R-2 UNDER ORDER 1 RULE 10 OF CPC BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT PETITION. CONSEQUENTLY, REJECT/DISMISS THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE ALLEGED R-2 UNDER ORDER 1 RULE 10 CPC (AT ANNEXURE-F). SINCE HE IS NOT A PROPER AND NECESSARY PARTY & ETC.

¶19

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

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

This writ petition is filed seeking for the following relief:

¶23

(i) Issue a writ of certiorari and to set aside the order dtd:01.08.2018 on I.A. passed by the Hon'ble Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal in O.S.No.492/2017 at Annexure-H, on the application filed by respondent No.2 under order 1 Rule 10 of CPC by allowing this writ petition.

¶24

(ii) Consequently, reject/dismiss the application filed by the alleged respondent No.2 under order 1 Rule 10 CPC (at Annexure-F). Since he is not a proper and necessary party.

¶25

Heard.

¶26

Sri.V.Shivakumar, learned counsel appearing for

¶27

the petitioner submits that the petitioner being a President of

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:25329 W.P. No.52306/2018

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

the Bommasandra Industries Association (Regd.), filed a suit in O.S.No.492/2017 against the Canara Bank seeking the relief of injunction not to disburse or release the amount from the accounts of the Association to the third parties. In the said suit, the respondent No.2 filed an application for impleadment which came to be allowed by the Trial Court without appreciating the fact that the application for impleadment was filed by one Muralidhar claiming to be the Executive Committee Member of the Association and as per the bye-laws, the Executive Committee Member has no power to transact the Bank account of the Association. It is submitted that the petitioner has filed two suits in O.S.Nos.460/2016 and 159/2017. In the said suits, temporary injunction has been granted restraining the other members from conducting elections to the Association as during the subsistence of the injunction orders, there cannot be any elections to the Association. It is further submitted that one Muralidhar claiming to be the Executive Committee Member filed an application contending that the elections to the Association was held on 15.09.2017 and he had been authorized to represent in the suit, which is in violation of the temporary injunction orders

¶31

4 -

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:25329 W.P. No.52306/2018

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

granted in O.S.Nos.460/2016 and 159/2017 which are in force. It is also submitted that the cause of action in O.S.No.460/2016 is only against the Canara Bank and that the proposed defendant neither has any locus nor any right to come on record. The lis is between the President of the Association and the Canara Bank. However, these aspects have not been considered by the Trial Court while allowing the application for impleadment by permitting the respondent No.2 to come on record. Hence, he seeks to allow the writ petition by setting aside the impugned order.

¶35

Per contra , Sri.M.R.Rajagopal, learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 supports the impugned order of the Trial Court and submits that the petition is represented by one Dayanand, who is no longer the President of the Association. He was the President of the Association earlier. Thereafter, two elections have been held, one on 15.09.2017 and the other on 23.06.2018. In the later elections, a new body has been formed which authorized Sri.Muralidhar, Executive Committee Member to represent in the suit by filing an application for impleadment. It is

¶36

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:25329 W.P. No.52306/2018

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

submitted that the said Sri.Dayanand, who has no authorization to represent the plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.492/2017, continues to prosecute the suit, which is against the interest of the Association and its duly elected body. It is submitted that the injunction orders referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner granted in O.S.Nos.460/2016 and 159/2017 are for the limited purposes and limited objectives. Thereafter, two elections have been held under the supervision of the Department of the Registrar of Societies and the list of elected representatives of the Association was also submitted to the Registrar of Societies which has been duly accepted and the said two elections were not challenged by the petitioner. When things stood thus, the Trial Court, considering the said aspect has recorded a clear finding with regard to the dispute as to who has to manage the affairs of the Association and proceeded to allow the application which does not call for any interference.

¶39

Sri.M.S.Vinayaka, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1-Canara Bank submits that the respondent No.1 being the Bank would abide by the orders of the Court in

¶40

6 -

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC:25329 W.P. No.52306/2018

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

operating the accounts of the Association. His submission is placed on record.

¶44

I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and perused the material available on record. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions advanced on both sides.

¶45

O.S.No.492/2017 was filed by the Bommasandra Industries Association (Regd.) represented by its President Sri.Dayanand seeking injunctory relief against the Canara Bank from disbursing or making payments of the funds or permitting any third party in operating the Bank accounts of the Association other than the Treasurer Sri.Paresh D. Shah and the President Sri.Dayanand. In the said suit, the respondent No.2 herein filed an application for impleadment which came to be allowed by the Trial Court by recording a finding that Sri.Dayanand as well as Sri.A.Prasad are claiming to be the President of the Bommasandra Industries Association (Regd.) and when there is a dispute with regard to two rival groups claiming to be the management of the Association, the

¶46

7 -

¶47

NC: 2025:KHC:25329 W.P. No.52306/2018

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

President of the later group will be a proper and necessary party and accordingly allowed the application. A meticulous perusal of the records indicate that two elections were held on 15.09.2017 and 23.06.2018 to the said Association and the records made available by the respondent No.2 along with the objections also indicate that the elections were held under the supervision of the officials of the Department of Registrar of Societies and thereafter, the list of the Executive Committee Member was submitted as per the requirement of law which has been duly accepted by the Registrar of Societies. The records further indicate that during the pendency of the suit, elections have taken place to the Association and a new body has been formed. When that being so, the Trial Court has rightly come to conclusion that the subsequent elected body is required to be represented in the suit. Ultimately, the suit is filed by the Association and it must be represented by the lawfully elected representative of the Association. Hence, I am of the considered view that the Trial Court was fully justified in allowing the application filed by the newly elected body of the Association. The contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the elections were held in contravention

¶50