Allowed

Sri Venkataraman Krishnamurthy v. the Amarjyothi House Building Co-Op.

Karnataka HC7 Feb 2025WP/6532/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Member of a housing co-operative society sought site allotment or refund with 18% interest after the Appellate Tribunal set aside the interest awarded by the Joint Registrar. The High Court quashed the Tribunal's order and restored the Joint Registrar's direction for allotment or refund with 18% interest.

What did the court decide?

Certiorari; order dated 15.07.2010 in Appeal No.551/2006 set aside; Joint Registrar's order dated 03.03.2006 restored — society to allot a site or refund with 18% p.a. interest.

Sri Venkataraman Krishnamurthy Vs the Amarjyothi… — Cooperative Societies | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:5711 WP No. 6532 of 2011

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 6532 OF 2011 (CS-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. VENKATARAMAN KRISHNAMURTHY S/O. KULATHU VENKATARAMAN, AGED 72 YEARS, B-202, "CITADEL" AGARA MAIN ROAD, BABUSABPALYA, BANGALORE-560043.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. SANATH KUMAR SHETTY K., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE AMARJYOTHI HOUSE BUILDING CO-OP. SOCIETY LTD., HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 40, M.N.K. ROAD, BASAVANGUDI, BANGALORE-560004, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SRI. NARAYAN MURTHY.

¶13

JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OP SOCIETIES, BANGALORE DIVISON, CHAMARAJPET, BANGALORE-560018, REPRESENTED BY ITS JOINT REGISTRAR.

¶14

[ THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, M.S. BUDLING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560001, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN .] V/O DATED 17/6/11 R3-DELETED.

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,

¶16

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:5711 WP No. 6532 of 2011

¶18

CO-OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560001.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SMT. LAXMI IYENGAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K.S. VENKATRAMAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. YOGESH D. NAIK, AGA FOR R2 & R4) (V/O DATED 17/6/11 R-3 DELETED)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 15.7.2010 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN APPEAL NO.551/2006 VIDE ANNEXURE-A TO THE EXTENT CHALLENGED IN THIS WRIT PETITION; ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.1 SOCIETY TO ALLOT THE SITE IN ANY OF THE AVAILABLE LAYOUTS OF FIRST RESPONDENT SOCIETY IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER; ALTERNATIVELY IN CASE THE RESPONDENT NO.1 SOCIETY IS NOT IN A POSITION TO ALLOT THE SITE, DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.1 SOCIETY TO PAY THE AMOUNT EQUIVALENT THE PRESENT MARKET VALUE OF THE SITE OF DIMENSION FOR WHICH THE PETITIONER HAS APPLIED FOR ALLOTMENT WITH RESPONDENT NO.1 SOCIETY; DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.1 SOCIETY TO PAY THE INTEREST AT 18% P.A ON THE DEPOSIT AMOUNT FROM THE DATE OF DEPOSIT TILL THE DATE OF PAYMENT AND ETC.

¶22

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 20.12.2024, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

¶24

NC: 2025:KHC:5711 WP No. 6532 of 2011

¶25

CAV ORDER

¶26

The Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the

¶27

following reliefs:

¶28

“(a) Issue a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 15.07.2010 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, in Appeal No.551/2006 vide Annexure-A to the extent challenged in this writ petition.

¶29

(b) Issue a writ of mandamus directing respondent No.1 society to allot the site in any of the available layouts of first respondent society in favour of the petitioner;

¶30

(c) Alternatively in case respondent No.1 society is not in a position to allot the site, direct the respondent No.1 society to pay the amount equivalent the present market value of the site of dimension for which the petitioner has applied for allotment with respondent No.1 society.

¶31

(d) Direct the respondent No.1 society to pay the interest at 18% p.a. on the deposit amount from the date of deposit till the date of payment.

¶32

(e) Issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper relief’s as this Hon’ble court deems fit and proper under the circumstances of this case”

¶33

What is challenged, is the order dated 15.07.2010 in

¶34

Appeal No.551 of 2006 issued by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru. The operative portion of the said order reads as under:

¶35

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:5711 WP No. 6532 of 2011

¶37

“ORDER

¶38

In the result, appeals filed by the appellant are partly allowed and order of awarding the interest at the rate of Rs.18% p.a. on deposit amount passed by the respondent No.2 dated 03.03.2006 in disputes No.JRB:2:MD:84:2002-03, No.JRB:2:MD:80:2002-03, No.JRB:2:MD:71:2004-05, No.JRB:2:MD:74:2004-05, No.JRB:2:MD:75:2004-05, No.JRB:2:MD:81:2002-03, No.JRB:2:MD:88:2002-03, No.JRB:2:MD:86:2002-03 and No.JRB:2:MD:76:2002-03 is set aside. Rest part of the order of the lower court is hereby confirmed.

¶39

In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as regards to the costs.

¶40

Keep the original order in Appeal No.551/2006 and copy of the same in other appeals.”

¶41

The contention of Sri Sanath Kumar Shetty K., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that, the petitioner claims to be a member of respondent No.1-Society and had made an application for allotment of a site. The site not having been allotted, the petitioner had raised a dispute before the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies under Sections 69 and 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959. In the said dispute, the Joint Registrar has passed the following order:

¶42

¶43

NC: 2025:KHC:5711 WP No. 6532 of 2011

¶44

“ DzÃ± É À

¶45

ªÁ¢AiÄ zÁªÁ Cfð ¥ À Åg À ¸ À Ìj¹z À . ¥ É æwªÁ¢ ¸ À AW À ª À Å ªÁ¢U À É ¸AW À z À °è ®¨s À å«g À Äª À §qÁª À u À Ai É Ä°è ªÁ¢ P À ÆÃjg É Äª À C¼ À v À Ai É Ä À ¤ªÃ± É £ À ª À £ À Äß F Dz À Ã± É ¥ À q À z É Jg À q À Ä wAU À ¼ À Æ¼ É UÁV º À AaP À É ªiÁq À v À P À Ìz À ÄÝ. v À ¦àz À °è o À Ãª É t À ¥Áª Â w ª À iÁrz À ¢£ÁAP À ¢Az À À ¸Á°AiiÁ£ À ± À ÃP É q À 18 g À §rØAi À ÆA¢U É o É Ãª É t À º Â tª À £ À Äß MAz À Ä À wAU¼ À Æ¼ É U À ¥ É æwªÁ¢ ¸ À AW À ª À Å ªÁ¢U À ªÁ¥ É ¸ À Äì ª À iÁq À v À P À Ìz À ÄÝ. À

¶46

Ez£ À Äß F ¢£ À ¢£ÁAP À : 03-03-2006 g À Az À Ä §»g À AU À À £ÁåAiiÁ®Ai À Äz À °è GZ À Ñj¹z À . É ”

¶47

In terms of the above order, respondent No.1 was directed to allot available sites in any layout of the society alternatively, in case of failure to allot the site, respondent No.1 society was directed to refund the amount paid by the petitioner with interest at the rate of 18% per annum.

¶48

It is challenging the same, respondent No.1 society

¶49

had approached the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.551 of 2006 along with the petitioner while several others were also arrayed as respondents on account of similar orders having passed by the registrar in their matters and challenged by the society, in the said matter the KAT passed the following common order on 15^th July, 2010.

¶50

¶51

NC: 2025:KHC:5711 WP No. 6532 of 2011

¶52

“ORDER

¶53

In the result, appeals filed by the appellant are partly allowed and order of awarding the interest at the rate of Respondent No.18% p.a. on deposit amount passed by the respondent No.2 dated 03.03.2006 in disputes No.JRB:2:MD:84:2002-03, No.JRB:2:MD:80:2002-03, No.JRB:2:MD:71:2004-05, No.JRB:2:MD:74:2004-05, No.JRB:2:MD:75:2004-05, No.JRB:2:MD:81:2002-03, No.JRB:2:MD:88:2002-03, No.JRB:2:MD:86:2002-03 and No.JRB:2:MD:76:200203 is set aside. Rest part of the order of the lower court is hereby confirmed.

¶54

In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as regards to the costs.

¶55

Keep the original order in Appeal No.551/2006 and copy of the same in other appeals.”

¶56

It is challenging the said order, the petitioner is

¶57

before this Court. A perusal of the order of the KAT indicates that the KAT set-aside the award of interest at the rate of 18% p.a. but rest of the order was confirmed. Rest of the order as indicated above is for a direction to the society to allot a site in any other layout formed by the society and if no such site were to be allotted, to execute a refund of the amounts paid.

¶58

The order passed by the Joint Registrar had been challenged by the society and not by the petitioner.

¶59

¶60

NC: 2025:KHC:5711 WP No. 6532 of 2011

¶61

Thus, the said order was accepted by the petitioner. It was the option of the society to allot a site in any other layout formed by the society or on failure thereof to refund the amount paid with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. The submission now made by Sri Sanath Kumar Shetty learned counsel for the petitioner is that a site has to be allotted and no refund of amounts paid.

¶62

The said submission cannot be accepted since the petitioner did not challenge the order of the Joint Registrar, which consequently attained finality. The petitioner having accepted the said order, the petitioner would be only entitled to a site in any other layout formed by the society and if no site were available for refund of the monies. Thus, the contention of the petitioner insofar as allotment of a site is concerned would have to be rejected.

¶63

Coming to the second aspect of the KAT having set aside the interest to be paid and I am of the

¶64

¶65

NC: 2025:KHC:5711 WP No. 6532 of 2011

¶66

considered opinion that the KAT erred in setting aside the direction to make payment of interest on the ground that the delay was on account of administrative exigencies and that the society has no other source of income or profit to make payment of interest. The fact remains that the society has received the amounts and has made use of the said amounts. The petitioner to the contrary has been deprived of the usage of the said amounts.

¶67

It would have been a different matter, if consequent to the delay, respondent No.1 had allotted a site in the present situation. The contention of Smt. Lakshmi Iyengar, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.1 is that no site is available and therefore no allotment could be made and as such, the amount would be refunded without interest.

¶68

The petitioner cannot be made to suffer double jeopardy. Firstly, being deprived of the allotment of a site and secondly being deprived of interest on the

¶69

¶70

NC: 2025:KHC:5711 WP No. 6532 of 2011

¶71

amount advanced by the petitioner to the society. It is for the respondent No.1 society to make a choice as to whether it will allot a site or refund the money with interest. The society cannot take undue advantage of its own wrongs by not allotting a site and also refusing to make payment of interest. In that view of the matter, I do not find favour with the order of the KAT setting aside the award of interest, as such, I pass the following :

¶72

ORDER

¶73

(a) Writ petition is allowed.

¶74

(b) A writ of certiorari is issued, the order dated 15.07.2010 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.551/2006 at Annexure-A is set aside. Consequently, respondent No.1 Society would have to comply with the order passed by

¶75

respondent No.2 by way of common order dated 03.03.2006 in JRB No.JRB:2:MD:84

¶76

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:5711 WP No. 6532 of 2011

¶77

:2002-03, No.JRB:2:MD:80:2002-03, No. JRB:2:MD:71:2004-05, No.JRB:2:MD: 74: 2004-05, No.JRB:2:MD:75 :2004-05, No.JRB:2:MD:81: 2002-03, No.JRB:2:MD: 88:2002-03, No.JRB:2:MD:86:2002-03 and No.JRB :2:MD:76 :2002-03.

¶78

(c) The option would be that of the society to allot a site in any other layout formed by the society. In the event of the society being unable to allot a site to the petitioner, the society would be liable to make payment of interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the amount paid by the petitioner from the date of payment till the date of receipt as directed by the 2^nd respondent.

¶79

Sd/(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

¶80

CKK CT-MCK

Sri Venkataraman Krishnamurthy v. the Amarjyothi House Building Co-Op.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Venkataraman Krishnamurthy v. the Amarjyothi House Building Co-Op.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Girish Kalasappanavar S/O Shivandappa K Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri. Parveenkumar S/O Mahaeshwara Haralalli Vs Smt. Suvarna Alias Fakkiravva W/O Maheshwara Haralalli

Smt. Manjula W/O Dayanand Adin Vs Dayanand S/O Jan Adin

Sri T Raghushankar Vs the Amarjyothi House Building Co-Operative Society

Ms Daniya Joy Vs the Indian Nursing Council

Chidambar S/O Virupaksha Kulkarni Vs the Superintendent Engineer