Mahendra Labs Private Limited Vs Karnataka State Drugs Logistics

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:44608 WP No. 52402 of 2019

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.52402 OF 2019 (GM-TEN)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MAHENDRA LABS PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 AND HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.371-372, IV PHASE PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA, 10TH CROSS BENGALURU-560 058 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR MADANRAJ NAHAR.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI SANJAY H. SETHIYA, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by MOUNESHWARAPPA NAGARATHNA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

KARNATAKA STATE DRUGS LOGISTICS AND WAREHOUSING SOCIETY A SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT,1860 NO.1, DR. SIDDAIAH PURANIK ROAD KHB COLONY, MAGADI ROAD BENGALURU-560 079 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SMT. SUMANA BALIGA M., ADVOCATE)

¶16

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE DEMAND NOTICES DATED 7-8-2018 AND 16-8-2018 AT ANNEXURES-M AND N ISSUED RESPONDENT IS ILLEGAL AND AS NOT MAINTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW.

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:44608 WP No. 52402 of 2019

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶25

In this petition, the petitioner is assailing the Demand Notice dated 07.08.2018 and 16.08.2018 (Annexures - M and N) passed by respondent No. 2. Inter alia , sought for a refund of Rs.64,23,827/-.

¶26

Having taken note of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, as it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent by referring to the Demand Notice raised at Annexure-M, as the disputed question of facts are involved in this writ petition, and therefore this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot adjudicate the claim made by the petitioner. In that view of the matter, as the entire case revolves around the recording of the evidence by the parties, I am of the view that the petition does not survive for consideration.

¶27