Partly allowed

Smt Yashoda N Rai v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC5 Jun 2026WP/28430/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition regarding the cancellation of a trade license, the High Court disposed of the petition with liberty to approach the authority subject to the outcome of a commercial suit involving a temporary injunction application filed by a relative contesting the license cancellation. Other questions were left open for the suit.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with liberty to approach the second respondent subject to the outcome of the pending commercial suit application for temporary injunction. All other questions left open.

Smt Yashoda N Rai Vs the Commissioner — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:26822 WP No. 28430 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 28430 OF 2025 (LB-RES)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT YASHODA N RAI AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, W/O. NARAYANA T.RAI, RESIDING AT POUND GARDEN, BEHIND CITY HOSPITAL, KADRI, MANGALORE -575 003.

¶11

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N

¶12

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

MR. ADITYA N RAI AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/O. LATE NARAYANA T RAI RESIDING AT POUND GARDEN BEHIND CITY HOSPITAL KADRI, MANGALORE- 575 003.

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI. K CHANDRANATH ARIGA.,ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

THE COMMISSIONER MANGALORE CITY CORPORATION M.G. ROAD, LALBAGH, MANGALORE- 575 003.

¶18

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:26822 WP No. 28430 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

THE HEALTH OFFICER MANGALORE CITY CORPORATION M.G.ROAD, LALBAGH, MANGALORE- 575 003.

¶22

NISHALI RAI AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS W/O ASHWIN SHETTY RESIDING AT PLANET SKS KADRI HILLS FLAT NO. 904, 9^TH FLOOR KADRI MANGALORE - 575 003.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI.K.N. NITISH., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K.V. NARASIMHAN., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2; SRI. SAMPAT ANAND SHETTY., ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶25

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-A) CALL FOR THE RECORDS OF ENQUIRY FROM R2 LEADING TO THE CANCELLATION OF THE TRADE LICENSES IN FILE NOS. 53730, 54224, 72766 FROM THE FILE OF RESPONDENTS; B) TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 04.06.2024 PASSED BY THE SECOND R2 (ANNEXURE-B).

¶26

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

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶28

¶29

NC: 2026:KHC:26822 WP No. 28430 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

The petitioners are mother and son and they are aggrieved by the second respondent’s decision to cancel the Trade License issued in the name of “The Childrens Corner”. The second respondent has cancelled the Trade License at the third respondent’s instance, and she is the first petitioner’s daughter. The petitioner's case is that the second respondent has cancelled the trade licence without notice. This Court, on 22.09.2025, has granted stay of the second respondent's decision.

¶33

Sri K Chandranath Ariga, the learned

¶34

counsel for the petitioners, submits that the controversy emanates from the facts such as that the first petitioner and the third respondent were partners of a firm running a similar business under the name and style “ Childrens Corner” and that they have dissolved the firm and the first petitioner has commenced the present business under the name and

¶35

¶36

NC: 2026:KHC:26822 WP No. 28430 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

style “The Childrens Corner” with her son [ the second petitioner ]. On the dispute between the petitioners and the third respondent, Sri K Chandranath Ariga, while stating that there are nineteen disputes between them, emphasizes the following.

¶39

[a] The third respondent has commenced arbitral proceedings for accounts and other claims which is pending consideration with an Arbitral Tribunal.

¶40

[b] After this Court has granted interim order on 22.09.2025, the third respondent has filed a commercial suit in Com. OS No.152/2026 on the file of

¶41

the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Mangaluru and she has the advantage of a temporary injunction against the petitioners from continuing with the business under the name and style of “ The Childrens Corner” .

¶42

¶43

NC: 2026:KHC:26822 WP No. 28430 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

Sri Sampat Anand Shetty, the learned

¶46

counsel for the third respondent, submits that the petitioners cannot take exception with the second respondent's decision to cancel the Trade License because it is upon realising that the petitioners had obtained the Trade license in the altered name under the guise of getting a renewal without disclosing the dissolution of the firm and the pending litigation commenced by the third respondent.

¶47

Sri K N Nitish, the learned counsel for the

¶48

first and second respondents, is heard to decide on the terms upon which the petition must be disposed of in the light of the afore circumstances including the subsequent event with the third respondent filing the suit and having the advantage of an ex parte interim order of temporary injunction against the petitioners from operating under the name and style “ The Childrens Corner” .

¶49

¶50

NC: 2026:KHC:26822 WP No. 28430 of 2025

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

The first petitioner was in business with

¶53

the third respondent in “ Childrens Corner” originally, and now she is in business with the second petitioner.

¶54

The third respondent has invoked civil Court’s jurisdiction which has granted an interim order, and the civil Court will have to examine amongst others whether the third respondent could seek injunction against the petitioners from conducting and operating the business under the name “ The Childrens Corner” . The civil Court will also have to examine this question considering every gamut of the controversy including the pending arbitral proceedings.

¶55

If the civil Court opines, while deciding on the third respondent’s application, that the third respondent is entitled to a temporary injunction, the cancellation of the trade license must be subject to further orders or the final outcome in the suit, but if the Civil Court, while deciding on the third respondent's application, decides or rules that the

¶56

¶57

NC: 2026:KHC:26822 WP No. 28430 of 2025

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

third respondent cannot maintain an application for a temporary injunction against the petitioners from running the business as aforesaid, the authorities will have to, notwithstanding the current decision, reissue/renew the license in favour of the petitioners. This Court must observe that in the latter event, the renewal should be subject to the outcome in the suit. Therefore, the following:

¶60

ORDER

¶61

[a] The petition stands disposed of with

¶62

liberty to the petitioners to approach the second respondent subject to the

¶63

outcome on the third respondent's pending application for temporary junction in the commercial suit in Com. OS No.152/2026 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Mangaluru.

¶64

¶65

NC: 2026:KHC:26822 WP No. 28430 of 2025

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

[b] It is needless to observe that all

¶68

questions otherwise are left open to be

¶69

decided in such suit.

¶70

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶71

AN/-

Smt Yashoda N Rai v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Yashoda N Rai v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri B Manjunatha Vs State of Karnataka

Sri N Chandrashekar Vs the Chief Commissioner

M/S Kmv Projects Limited Vs Karnataka Residential Educational Institutions Society

K Annayappa Vs the Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Mr. v Guru Swagath Vs State of Karnataka

C Krishnappa Vs State of Karnataka