M/S Le Meridian Vs the Commissioner — Company and Corporate | Karnataka HC (2025)

M/S Le Meridian Vs the Commissioner — Company and Corporate | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petitioner permitted to treat the Annexure-H demand notice as a show cause notice and file objections before Respondent No.2 within three weeks; BBMP to consider the objections and pass an appropriate order after hearing the petitioner; the interim order previously granted to continue in the petitioner's favour until then.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner had been notified / afforded an opportunity of being heard before the BBMP made the demand for charges for unauthorized display of the hoarding. +1 more

Court's answer

Since the petitioner had not been heard in the matter before the impugned demand was made, the Court directed the petitioner to treat the demand notice at Annexure 'H' as a show cause notice and file its objections before Respondent No.2 within a period of three weeks.

Ratio / Principle

The BBMP shall consider the objections filed by the petitioner and pass an appropriate order after hearing the petitioner.

Key takeaways

Until the BBMP considered the objections and passed an order after hearing the petitioner, the interim order granted by this Court would continue to enure to the petitioner's benefit.ratio¶31
The writ petition was allowed.ratio¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (N S Sanjay Gowda, J.), 05.02.2025 — W.P. No. 65190/2016 (LB-BMP): Le Meridian Bangalore (Mac Charles (I) Ltd.) challenged a BBMP demand notice (No. HN806409316173541, dt. 19.08.2016, Annexure-H) demanding Rs.7,13,435=52 as charges for allegedly unauthorized display of a hoarding; an interim order of 20.12.2016 conditional on depositing 50% of the demand had been complied with. Finding that the petitioner had not been heard before the impugned demand was made, the Court directed the petitioner to treat the Annexure-H notice as a show cause notice and file objections with Respondent No.2 (Assistant Revenue Officer, BBMP) within three weeks; the BBMP was to consider the objections and pass an appropriate order after hearing the petitioner, the interim order continuing meanwhile. Writ petition allowed. The questions whether the hoarding was unauthorized and the display period were left for fresh consideration by the BBMP.

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:5298 WP No. 65190 of 2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 65190 OF 2016 (LB-BMP)

BETWEEN:

M/S LE MERIDIAN BANGALORE BY ITS OWNER, M/S MAC CHARLES (I)LTD., A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT: P.B.NO.174, NO.28, SANKEY ROAD, BANGALORE-560 052 REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE-PRESIDENT (FINANCE) & COMPANY SECRETARY, MR M.S.REDDY, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, S/OF MR BASI REDDY

Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

(BY SRI. MANJU M SUBBAIAH., ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE COMMISSIONER BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N.R.SQUARE, CORPORATION BUILDINGS, BANGALORE-560 002.

…PETITIONER

THE ASST. REVENUE OFFICER BBMP, VASANTHANAGAR SUB-DVN., AND DELEGATED AUTHORITY OF IST RESPONDENT QUEENS ROAD,

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:5298 WP No. 65190 of 2016

BANGALORE-560 052.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. B L SANJEEV., ADVOCATE)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH OR SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED NOTICE BEARING NO.HN806409316173541 DTD.19.8.2016 ISSUED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNEX-H AND ETC.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA

ORAL ORDER

A notice dated 19.08.2016 by which the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (' the BBMP ') has called upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.7,13,435=52 as charges for unauthorized display of a hoarding, is questioned in this writ petition.

This Court entertained this writ petition and granted an interim order on 20.12.2016 subject to the petitioner depositing 50% of the demanded amount. It is stated that this interim order has been complied with.

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:5298 WP No. 65190 of 2016

The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the Notice at Annexure “H” does not indicate that the petitioner was notified before the demand was made.

The learned counsel for the petitioner disputes the allegations made in the notice that the hoarding was put up unauthorizedly. He also disputes the period during which the BBMP claims that the hoarding was put up.

In my view, since the petitioner has not been heard in the matter before the impugned demand was made, it would be appropriate to direct the petitioner to treat the demand notice at Annexure ‘H’ as a show cause notice and file its objections before respondent No.2 within a period of three weeks from today.

The BBMP shall thereafter consider the objections and pass an appropriate order after hearing the petitioner.

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:5298 WP No. 65190 of 2016

Until then, the interim order granted by this Court will enure to the petitioner’s benefit.

The writ petition is according allowed .

Sd/(N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE

RK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39