Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE B.M. SHYAM PRASAD
WRIT PETITION No.16706/2021 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN : --------------
M/s Harsha Infrastructures and Developers Registered Partnership Firm Presently having its office at No.6, 1st 'A' Cross, Bhuvaneshwari Nagara, Dasarahalli Main Road, Hebbal Post, Bengaluru-560054.
Represented by its Partner Sri H.R. Harshith and Sri H.P. Anantha
Sri. H.R. Harshith S/o H.P. Ramesh, Aged About 25 Years, Partner of M/S Harsha Infrastructures And Developers, R/at No.L-204, Purva Pavillion, Opp: Sindhi College, Hebbal Kempapura, Bengaluru-560 024.
2 3. Sri. H.P. Anantha S/o Late Puttathimmegowda, Aged About 50 Years, Partner of M/s Harsha Infrastructures And Developers R/at Honnakumaranahalli Gandasi Hobli, Arasikere Taluk, Hassan District.
… PETITIONERS
(By Sri. S.Basavaraju, Adv.)
AND : -------
S. Shankar Prasad S/o Late M. Srinivas Reddy, Aged about 55 Years, R/at No.30/10, 1st Floor, 2nd Main, 1st Cross, Income Tax Layout, Attiguppe, Vijaanagar, Bengaluru-560 040.
M/S G.M. Associates A Partnership Firm having its office at No.209, 'Charvi Mansion', 2nd Floor, 5th Main Road, R.P.C. Layout, Vijayanagar, Bengaluru-560 040 Represented by its Partner Sri. Giridhar Gopal Bagri
… RESPONDENTS
(By Sri. R.Kiran, Adv., for R1; Sri. B.C.Chethan, Adv., for R2 )
---
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to quash the order of the Principal Civil Judge Junior Division and JMFC, Shivamogga, in O.S.No.188 of 2020 dated 23rd March, 2020 in so far as it refuses to grant ad-interim order of temporary injunction restraining the defendants from transferring the plaint schedule property pending disposal of the suit at Annexure-A and etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court passed the following;
O R D E R
The plaintiffs in O.S. No. 188/2020 on the file of the III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Shivamogga, (for short 'the civil Court’) have preferred this petition impugning the civil Court’s refusal to grant ad-interim injunction restraining the first respondent from alienating sites formed in land measuring 15 acres 29 guntas in survey No.41 of Thyavarekuppa village, Kasaba hobli, Shivmogga taluk and District and the sites in respect of which the petitioners assert rights are described in schedule B. The petitioners have approached this Court earlier in W.P. No. 8254/2021
4 for a direction to the civil Court to expeditiously dispose of their applications viz., I.A. Nos. II and III/2020. This Court has disposed of the writ petition calling upon the civil Court to hear and dispose the applications within a period of two months. This Court’s order is dated 22.04.2021. The learned counsel appearing for the parties are unanimous in their submission that the parties were heard on these applications after this Court’s order, but the applications are not disposed of and are pending consideration because of the transfer of the Presiding Officer.
Sri. Basavaraju S., the learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the petition could be disposed of with direction to the civil Court to dispose the applications in a time bound manner, and Sri. R. Kiran, the learned counsel, who appears for the contesting first respondent, submits that the petition indeed could be disposed of accordingly. The first
5 respondent would assist and cooperate with the civil Court for expeditious disposal of the applications in a time bound manner.
However, the difference in the submissions by Sri. Basavaraju S. and Sri. R. Kiran is because Sri. Basavaraju S. submits that the first respondent must be called upon not to further alienate any site mentioned in Schedule B, which belong to the Firm, until the disposal of the applications and Sri. R. Kiran contests this submission asserting that the suit itself is not maintainable and if the suit is not maintainable, there cannot be an order of temporary injunction. The petitioners’ case is that between them they own 85% share in the firm’s assets and first respondent, who undisputedly owns 15% share, is transferring the firms’ properties/sites to the petitioners’ detriment. This submission is refuted by Sri. R. Kiran asserting that the first respondent has been transferring the sites that
6 belong to the firm because he is duly authorized by the second and third petitioners who are only sleeping partners and the first respondent is managing the firm's affairs. Sri. R. Kiran also submits that if the petitioners were to succeed in the applications/suit, every alienation by the first respondent as managing partner of the firm would stand annulled and the first respondent would vouch for that and be accountable.
Insofar as the second respondent, Sri. B.C. Chethan, the learned counsel who appears for this respondent, submits that this respondent’s interest is only insofar as the amounts that are due from the firm for the work executed.
The petitioners' applications for injunction both against non-interference and alienation are pending consideration before the civil Court, and this Court, at this stage would opine that the rival claims will have to be
7 considered by the civil Court. But, the circumstances of the case do command that the civil Court must be called upon to expeditiously dispose of the applications with both the parties admitting that these applications have been pending consideration for substantial period of time despite orders of this Court. Therefore, the petition stands disposed of calling upon the civil Court to dispose of the petitioners' pending applications on or before 09.10.2021 and to file a report in this regard with the Registry.
SD/- JUDGE
LRS.