M/S Unishire Promoters Pvt. Ltd., Vs State of Karnataka

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:16452 WP No. 3114 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 3114 OF 2026 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

M/S UNISHIRE PROMOTERS PVT., LTD., A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE INDIAN COMPANIES ACT, 1956 AND HAVING ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE AT NO.36, UNISHIRE SQUARE, RAILWAY PARALLEL ROAD, NEHRU NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 020.

¶9

PRESENTLY AT NO.42, CASTLE STREET, ASHOK NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 025. REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY SRI. PRATIK K. MEHTA.

¶10

Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B

¶11

Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

MR. KIRTI MEHTA S/O. KANTILAL MEHTA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS

¶13

MR. PRATIK K. MEHTA S/O. MR. KIRTI MEHTA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

¶14

MR. VINAY K. MEHTA S/O. MR. KIRTI K. MEHTA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

¶15

NO.2 TO 4 RESIDING AT

¶16

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:16452 WP No. 3114 of 2026

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

NO. 36, RAILWAY PARALLEL ROAD, NEHRU NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 020, CURRENT ADDRESS: NO.42, CASTLE STREET, ASHOK NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 025.

¶19

…PETITIONERS

¶20

(BY SRI. G.S.VENKAT SUBBARAO, ADVOCATE)

¶21

AND:

¶22

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING, GOVT., OF KARNATAKA, ROOM NO.213, 2ND FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶23

KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY, NO.1/14, 2ND FLOOR, SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK, UNITY BUILDING, CSI COMPOUND, 3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 027.

¶24

MR. ROHAN VYAVAHARKAR S/O MR. ASHOK VYAVAHARKAR AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,

¶25

MRS. DEBKANYA DHAR W/O MR. ROHAN VYAVAHARKAR AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,

¶26

NO.4 AND 5 RESIDING AT B1, METROPOLITAN, PALI HILL,

¶27

3 -

¶28

NC: 2026:KHC:16452 WP No. 3114 of 2026

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

BANDRA (W), MUMBAI CITY - 400 050 MAHARASHTRA.

¶31

…RESPONDENTS

¶32

(BY SMT. NAVYA SHEKHAR, AGA FOR R1; SRI. K.V. GIRISH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶33

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 15.01.2025 IN FR NO. (K-REAT) 146/2023, PASSED BY KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE, ON IA NO.2/2024 FILED UNDER SEC. 151 OF CPC SEEKING DISPENSATION OF STATUTORY DEPOSIT VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,

¶34

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

¶35

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶36

ORAL ORDER

¶37

This petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

¶38

a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the Impugned Order dated 15.01.2025 in FR No.(K-REAT) 146/2023, passed by Karnataka Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, on IA No.2/2024 filed under Sec.151 of CPC seeking dispensation of statutory deposit, vide Annexure –A.

¶39

b) Grant such other relief or reliefs or directions as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant under the circumstances of the case, including costs, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶40

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:16452 WP No. 3114 of 2026

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned AGA appearing for respondent No.1, and the learned standing counsel appearing for respondent No.2. Perused the material on record.

¶43

The petitioner, a promoter, has called in question the order passed by the RERA Authority, notwithstanding the fact that an appeal has already been preferred before the RERA Appellate Tribunal in FR No.(K-REAT) 146/2023.

¶44

The impugned order passed by the RERA Authority is admittedly appealable. The records further disclose that the petitioner has already availed the statutory appellate remedy and the same is pending consideration. Having invoked the appellate jurisdiction, the petitioner cannot be permitted to simultaneously invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking identical relief. Such parallel recourse is impermissible in law.

¶45

Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed .

¶46

5 -

¶47

NC: 2026:KHC:16452 WP No. 3114 of 2026

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

Liberty is, however, reserved to the petitioner to prosecute the pending appeal.

¶50

It is further clarified that this order shall not come in the way of the petitioner seeking appropriate relief before the Tribunal, including reconsideration of the requirement

¶51

of deposit of the entire amount.

¶52

Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶53

HDK List No.: 3 Sl No.: 2

M/S Unishire Promoters Pvt. Ltd., v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Unishire Promoters Pvt. Ltd., v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Fellowship of Udupi District Churches Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Dayanand Madhu Shetty Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Yadehalli Sports Club Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Nagaraj Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Academy Newspapers Pvt. Ltd., Vs State of Karnataka

Ravindra Kumar B Vs the State of Karnataka