Disposed¶33

Sapphire Infrastructure v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC16 Feb 2026WP/21879/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Article 226 writ petition by non-party seeking declaration that order dated 21.01.2025 in W.P.No.28202/2024 (KLR-RES) is not binding on it; disposal as infructuous on memo dated 16.02.2026 after post-remand rejection of respondent No.4's claim by respondent No.3; Sapphire Infrastructure Development Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka; binding effect of orders on strangers to proceedings; KLR-RES; Bengaluru South Sub-Division; Tahsildar Anekal; NC: 2026:KHC:9295.

What did the court decide?

Since post remand respondent No.4 (the petitioner in W.P.No.28202/2024) has suffered orders at the hands of respondent No.3, the relief sought in the present writ petition is rendered infructuous. ¶33

Sapphire Infrastructure Vs the State of Karnataka — Company and Corporate | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:9295 WP No. 21879 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.21879 OF 2025 (KLR-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SAPPHIRE INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD., A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.366 1^ST CROSS, 3^RD BLOCK KORAMANGALA SARJAPUR ROAD BENGALURU-560 034 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY SRI.A.BASAVARAJ S/O LATE MALKAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS

¶10

Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

(BY SRI.NARAYAN RAO, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.RAJESWARA P.N, ADVOCATE)

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560001

¶15

¶16

NC: 2026:KHC:9295 WP No. 21879 of 2025

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU SOUTH SUB-DIVISION BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT KANDAYA BHAVANA K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560009

¶19

THE TAHSILDAR ANEKAL TALUK, ANEKAL BENGALURU-562106

¶20

VIJAYA KUMAR S S/O SRINIVASACHARI AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT NO.119, BASAVASREE GANESH MANDIR ROAD TYAGARAJANAGAR BSK 2^ND STAGE BENGALURU - 560070

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI.KIRAN KUMAR, HCGP)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALLING FOR RECORDS IN W.P.NO.28202/2024 (KLR-RES) AND DECLARE THAT THE ORDER DATED 21.01.2025 PASSED IN W.P.NO.28202/2024 (KLR-RES) BY THIS HONBLE COURT AT ANNEXURE-A IS NOT BINDING ON THE PETITIONER AS IT ADVERSELY AFFECTS THE INTEREST OF THE PETITIONER THOUGH THE PETITIONER WAS NOT PARTY TO THE SAID PROCEEDINGS AND ETC.

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶26

¶27

NC: 2026:KHC:9295 WP No. 21879 of 2025

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a memo

¶31

dated 16.02.2026 seeking disposal of the petition.

¶32

On reading the memo, it is forthcoming that post remand, the claim of respondent No.4, who was the petitioner in W.P.No.28202/2024, is rejected by respondent No.3 on merits. It is, in this background, a memo is filed indicating that the relief sought in the captioned petition is rendered infructuous.

¶33

Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed off . Since post remand, respondent No.4 has suffered orders at the hands of respondent No.3.

¶34

Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶35

NBM

¶36

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14

Sapphire Infrastructure v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sapphire Infrastructure v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Nagamma Vs Sri N Nagaraj

Smt. P H Nagamani Vs the Karnataka Slum Areas

Sri D Lokanathan Vs a Farnandis

Shri N Vasudeva Bhat Vs Shri H M Suresh

Smt Lakshmi K Vs Sri R S Yerrappa

M/S Century Galaxy Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Registrar of Societies