Karnataka High Court
Sjr Prime Corporation Pvt Ltd vs Jaipaul Anthony on 19 July, 2019
Author: Alok Aradhe
Bench: Alok Aradhe
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JULY 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
W.P.NO.9849/2019
C/W
W.P.NO.9851/2019, W.P.NO.11522/2019,
W.P.NO.11523/2019, W.P.NO.11524/2019,
W.P.NO.11525/2019, W.P.NO.11830/2019,
W.P.NO.11832/2019, W.P.NO.11833/2019,
W.P.NO.28573/2019, W.P.NO.28574/2019,
W.P.NO.28575/2019, W.P.NO.28576/2019,
W.P.NO.28577/2019, W.P.NO.28689/2019 (GM-RES)
W.P.NO.9849/2019
BETWEEN:
SJR PRIME CORPORATION PVT. LTD.
NO.1 SJR PRIMUS, 7TH FLOOR
KORAMANGALA INDUSTRIAL LAYOUT
7TH BLOCK, BANGALORE-560095
REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL HEAD.
... PETITIONER
(BY MR. DHYAN CHINNAPPA AND
MR. D.N. NANJUNDA REDDY, SENIOR COUNSELS FOR
SMT. GAWRY COOTAIAH, ADV. FOR
M/S CRESTA LAW PARTNERS)
AND:
1. JAIPAUL ANTHONY
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
S/O ANTHONY K PAUL
2
GPI 203, GREEN PARK REGENCY
NEAR AMRITHA UNIVERSITY
HOSA ROAD, BANGALORE-560035.
2. REAL ESTATE ADJUDICATING OFFICER
2ND FLOOR, SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK
UNITY BUILDING, CSI COMPOUND
3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD
BANGALORE-560027.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. VIKAS MAHENDRA, ADV., FOR
M/S. KEY STONE PARTNERS FOR R1
MR. PRASHANTH M.V. ADV., FOR R2)
----
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30.01.2019 PASSED BY R-2 AT
ANNEXURE-A. GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO STAY THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30.01.2019 PASSED BY R-2 AT
ANNEXURE-A & ETC.
W.P.NO.9851/2019
BETWEEN:
SJR PRIME CORPORATION PVT. LTD.
NO.1, SJR PRIMUS, 7TH FLOOR
KORAMANGALA INDUSTRIAL LAYOUT
7TH BLOCK, BANGALORE-560095
REPRESENTED BY IS LEGAL HEAD.
... PETITIONER
(BY MR. DHYAN CHINNAPPA AND
MR. D.N. NANJUNDA REDDY, SENIOR COUNSELS FOR
SMT. GAWRY COOTAIAH, ADV. FOR
M/S CRESTA LAW PARTNERS)
AND:
1. RATHOD MEGHA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
W/O VORA PRASHANTHKUMAR BIPINCHANDRA.
2. VORA PRASHANTHKUMAR BIPINCHANDRA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
3
S/O VORA BIPINCHANDRA MANSUKHAL.
BOTH RESIDING AT GPI 203
GREEN PARK REGENCY
NEAR AMRITHA UNIVERSITY
HOSA ROAD, BANGALORE-560035.
3. REAL ESTATE ADJUDICATING OFFICER
2ND FLOOR, SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK
UNITY BUILDING, CSI COMPOUND
3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD
BANGALORE-560027.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. VIKAS MAHENDRA, ADV., FOR
M/S. KEY STONE PARTNERS FOR R1
MR. PRASHANTH M.V. ADV., FOR R2)
----
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30.01.2019 PASSED BY R-3 AT
ANNEXURE-A. GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO STAY THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30.01.2019 PASSED BY R-3 AT
ANNEXURE-A & ETC.
W.P.NO.11522/2019
BETWEEN:
SJR PRIME CORPORATION PVT. LTD.
NO.1 SJR PRIMUS, 7TH FLOOR
KORAMANGALA INDUSTRIAL LAYOUT
7TH BLOCK, BANGALORE-560095
REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL HEAD.
... PETITIONER
(BY MR. DHYAN CHINNAPPA AND
MR. D.N. NANJUNDA REDDY, SENIOR COUNSELS FOR
SMT. GAWRY COOTAIAH, ADV. FOR
M/S CRESTA LAW PARTNERS)
4
AND:
1. VENKATA SIVANNARAYANA GOLLA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
S/O ANJANEYULU GOLLA
HOUSE NO.13/8, RAMALAYAM STREET
POLILI, PRASKASAM DISTRICT
ANDRA PRADESH - 523 240.
2. REAL ESTATE ADJUDICATING OFFICER
2ND FLOOR, SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK
UNITY BUILDING, CSI COMPOUND
3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD
BANGALORE-560027.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. VIKAS MAHENDRA, ADV., FOR
M/S. KEY STONE PARTNERS FOR R1
MR. PRASHANTH M.V. ADV., FOR R2)
----
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30.01.2019 PASSED BY R-2 AT
ANNEXURE-A. GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO STAY THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30.01.2019 PASSED BY R-2 AT
ANNEXURE-A & ETC.
W.P.NO.11523/2019
BETWEEN:
SJR PRIME CORPORATION PVT. LTD.
NO.1 SJR PRIMUS, 7TH FLOOR
KORAMANGALA INDUSTRIAL LAYOUT
7TH BLOCK, BANGALORE-560095
REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL HEAD.
... PETITIONER
(BY MR. DHYAN CHINNAPPA AND
MR. D.N. NANJUNDA REDDY, SENIOR COUNSELS FOR
SMT. GAWRY COOTAIAH, ADV. FOR
M/S CRESTA LAW PARTNERS)
5
AND:
1. MOHAMMAD SABIR HUSSAIN
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
S/O MOHAMMAD ALI HUSSAIN
TETRA 1102, SJR WATERMARK
SUBH ENCLAVE, HARLUR ROAD
OFF SARJAPUR ROAD
BANGALORE-560102.
2. REAL ESTATE ADJUDICATING OFFICER
2ND FLOOR, SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK
UNITY BUILDING, CSI COMPOUND
3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD
BANGALORE-560027.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. VIKAS MAHENDRA, ADV., FOR
M/S. KEY STONE PARTNERS FOR R1
MR. PRASHANTH M.V. ADV., FOR R2)
----
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30.01.2019 PASSED BY R-2 AT
ANNEXURE-A. GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO STAY THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30.01.2019 PASSED BY R-2 AT
ANNEXURE-A & ETC.
W.P.NO.11524/2019
BETWEEN:
SJR PRIME CORPORATION PVT. LTD.
NO.1 SJR PRIMUS, 7TH FLOOR
KORAMANGALA INDUSTRIAL LAYOUT
7TH BLOCK, BANGALORE-560095
REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL HEAD.
... PETITIONER
(BY MR. DHYAN CHINNAPPA AND
MR. D.N. NANJUNDA REDDY, SENIOR COUNSELS FOR
SMT. GAWRY COOTAIAH, ADV. FOR
M/S CRESTA LAW PARTNERS)
6
AND:
1. AKSHAY PRADHAN KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
S/O SURESH PRADHAN
B-1, MS CRYSTALS
MALLESHPALYA, BANGALORE-560095.
2. REAL ESTATE ADJUDICATING OFFICER
2ND FLOOR, SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK
UNITY BUILDING, CSI COMPOUND
3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD
BANGALORE-560027.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. VIKAS MAHENDRA, ADV., FOR
M/S. KEY STONE PARTNERS FOR R1
MR. PRASHANTH M.V. ADV., FOR R2)
----
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30.01.2019 PASSED BY R-2 AT
ANNEXURE-A. GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO STAY THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30.01.2019 PASSED BY R-2 AT
ANNEXURE-A & ETC.
W.P.NO.11525/2019
BETWEEN:
SJR PRIME CORPORATION PVT. LTD.
NO.1 SJR PRIMUS, 7TH FLOOR
KORAMANGALA INDUSTRIAL LAYOUT
7TH BLOCK, BANGALORE-560095
REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL HEAD.
... PETITIONER
(BY MR. DHYAN CHINNAPPA AND
MR. D.N. NANJUNDA REDDY, SENIOR COUNSELS FOR
SMT. GAWRY COOTAIAH, ADV. FOR
M/S CRESTA LAW PARTNERS)
7
AND:
1. GAURAV GUPTA
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
S/O GYANENDRA NATH GUPTA
HOUSE NO.3799, FIRST FLOOR
100 FT. ROAD, 6TH MAIN, 2ND CROSS
NEAR SSB INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL
HAL 2ND STAGE, INDIRANAGAR
BANGALORE-560038.
2. REAL ESTATE ADJUDICATING OFFICER
2ND FLOOR, SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK
UNITY BUILDING, CSI COMPOUND
3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD
BANGALORE-560027.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. VIKAS MAHENDRA, ADV., FOR
M/S. KEY STONE PARTNERS FOR R1
MR. PRASHANTH M.V. ADV., FOR R2)
----
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30.01.2019 PASSED BY R-2 AT
ANNEXURE-A. GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO STAY THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30.01.2019 PASSED BY R-2 AT
ANNEXURE-A & ETC.
W.P.NO.11830/2019
BETWEEN:
SJR PRIME CORPORATION PVT. LTD.
NO.1 SJR PRIMUS, 7TH FLOOR
KORAMANGALA INDUSTRIAL LAYOUT
7TH BLOCK, BANGALORE-560095
REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL HEAD.
... PETITIONER
(BY MR. DHYAN CHINNAPPA AND
MR. D.N. NANJUNDA REDDY, SENIOR COUNSELS FOR
SMT. GAWRY COOTAIAH, ADV. FOR
M/S CRESTA LAW PARTNERS)
8
AND:
1. KRUSHNA CHANDRA SAHOO
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
S/O KANDURI CHARAN SAHOO
B-205, RAJA RAJESHWARI NIVAS
VAJAPAYEE NAGAR, BOMMANAHALLI
BANGALORE-560068.
2. REAL ESTATE ADJUDICATING OFFICER
2ND FLOOR, SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK
UNITY BUILDING, CSI COMPOUND
3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD
BANGALORE-560027.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. VIKAS MAHENDRA, ADV., FOR
M/S. KEY STONE PARTNERS FOR R1
MR. PRASHANTH M.V. ADV., FOR R2)
----
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30.01.2019 PASSED BY R-2 AT
ANNEXURE-A. GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO STAY THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30.01.2019 PASSED BY R-2 AT
ANNEXURE-A & ETC.
W.P.NO.11832/2019
BETWEEN:
SJR PRIME CORPORATION PVT. LTD.
NO.1 SJR PRIMUS, 7TH FLOOR
KORAMANGALA INDUSTRIAL LAYOUT
7TH BLOCK, BANGALORE-560095
REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL HEAD.
... PETITIONER
(BY MR. DHYAN CHINNAPPA AND
MR. D.N. NANJUNDA REDDY, SENIOR COUNSELS FOR
SMT. GAWRY COOTAIAH, ADV. FOR
M/S CRESTA LAW PARTNERS)
9
AND:
1. KARAN SHARMA
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
S/O KAILASH NATH SHARMA
2A, VICTOR PLAZA, 4TH CROSS
VINAYAK NAGAR B BLOCK
BANGALORE URBAN-560017.
2. REAL ESTATE ADJUDICATING OFFICER
2ND FLOOR, SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK
UNITY BUILDING, CSI COMPOUND
3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD
BANGALORE-560027.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. VIKAS MAHENDRA, ADV., FOR
M/S. KEY STONE PARTNERS FOR R1
MR. PRASHANTH M.V. ADV., FOR R2)
----
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30.01.2019 PASSED BY R-2 AT
ANNEXURE-A. GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO STAY THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30.01.2019 PASSED BY R-2 AT
ANNEXURE-A & ETC.
W.P.NO.11833/2019
BETWEEN:
SJR PRIME CORPORATION PVT. LTD.
NO.1 SJR PRIMUS, 7TH FLOOR
KORAMANGALA INDUSTRIAL LAYOUT
7TH BLOCK, BANGALORE-560095
REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL HEAD.
... PETITIONER
(BY MR. DHYAN CHINNAPPA AND
MR. D.N. NANJUNDA REDDY, SENIOR COUNSELS FOR
SMT. GAWRY COOTAIAH, ADV. FOR
M/S CRESTA LAW PARTNERS)
10
AND:
1. NAGABHUSHAN SRINIVASA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
S/O SRINIVASA B.M.
#33, C CROSS, RAJEEVNAHAR 7TH CROSS
7TH MAIN, BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE
BANGALORE-560085.
2. REAL ESTATE ADJUDICATING OFFICER
2ND FLOOR, SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK
UNITY BUILDING, CSI COMPOUND
3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD
BANGALORE-560027.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. VIKAS MAHENDRA, ADV., FOR
M/S. KEY STONE PARTNERS FOR R1
MR. PRASHANTH M.V. ADV., FOR R2)
----
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30.01.2019 PASSED BY R-2 AT
ANNEXURE-A. GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO STAY THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30.01.2019 PASSED BY R-2 AT
ANNEXURE-A & ETC.
W.P.NO.28573/2019
BETWEEN:
SJR PRIME CORPORATION PVT. LTD.
NO.1 SJR PRIMUS, 7TH FLOOR
KORAMANGALA INDUSTRIAL LAYOUT
7TH BLOCK, BANGALORE-560095
REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL HEAD.
... PETITIONER
(BY MR. DHYAN CHINNAPPA AND
MR. D.N. NANJUNDA REDDY, SENIOR COUNSELS FOR
SMT. GAWRY COOTAIAH, ADV. FOR
M/S CRESTA LAW PARTNERS)
11
AND:
1. ARPAN KUMAR
GANGOTRI GALAXY, FLAT 406/407
4TH CROSS, UMARBAGH LAYOUT
NEW SARAKI MARKET
BENGALURU-560037.
2. REAL ESTATE ADJUDICATING OFFICER
2ND FLOOR, SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK
UNITY BUILDING, CSI COMPOUND
3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD
BANGALORE-560027.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. VIKAS MAHENDRA, ADV., FOR
M/S. KEY STONE PARTNERS FOR R1
MR. PRASHANTH M.V. ADV., FOR R2)
----
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 25.04.2019 PASSED BY R-2 AT
ANNEXURE-A. GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO STAY THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 25.04.2019 PASSED BY R-2 AT
ANNEXURE-A & ETC.
W.P.NO.28574/2019
BETWEEN:
SJR PRIME CORPORATION PVT. LTD.
NO.1 SJR PRIMUS, 7TH FLOOR
KORAMANGALA INDUSTRIAL LAYOUT
7TH BLOCK, BANGALORE-560095
REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL HEAD.
... PETITIONER
(BY MR. DHYAN CHINNAPPA AND
MR. D.N. NANJUNDA REDDY, SENIOR COUNSELS FOR
SMT. GAWRY COOTAIAH, ADV. FOR
M/S CRESTA LAW PARTNERS)
12
AND:
1. SUDHAKAR PALANISAMY
10/12, MANAGER KALIANNA GOUNDER STREET
KOLATHU PALAYAM PUDUR
KODUMUDI, ERODE
TAMIL NADU-638151.
2. REAL ESTATE ADJUDICATING OFFICER
2ND FLOOR, SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK
UNITY BUILDING, CSI COMPOUND
3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD
BANGALORE-560027.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. VIKAS MAHENDRA, ADV., FOR
M/S. KEY STONE PARTNERS FOR R1
MR. PRASHANTH M.V. ADV., FOR R2)
----
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 25.04.2019 PASSED BY R-2 AT
ANNEXURE-A. GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO STAY THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 25.04.2019 PASSED BY R-2 AT
ANNEXURE-A & ETC.
W.P.NO.28575/2019
BETWEEN:
SJR PRIME CORPORATION PVT. LTD.
NO.1 SJR PRIMUS, 7TH FLOOR
KORAMANGALA INDUSTRIAL LAYOUT
7TH BLOCK, BANGALORE-560095
REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL HEAD.
... PETITIONER
(BY MR. DHYAN CHINNAPPA AND
MR. D.N. NANJUNDA REDDY, SENIOR COUNSELS FOR
SMT. GAWRY COOTAIAH, ADV. FOR
M/S CRESTA LAW PARTNERS)
13
AND:
1. SHAMIK GHOSH
B-608, MANAR ELEGANCE
HSR SECTOR-2
BANGALORE-560102.
2. REAL ESTATE ADJUDICATING OFFICER
2ND FLOOR, SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK
UNITY BUILDING, CSI COMPOUND
3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD
BANGALORE-560027.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. VIKAS MAHENDRA, ADV., FOR
M/S. KEY STONE PARTNERS FOR R1
MR. PRASHANTH M.V. ADV., FOR R2)
----
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 25.04.2019 PASSED BY R-2 AT
ANNEXURE-A. GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO STAY THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 25.04.2019 PASSED BY R-2 AT
ANNEXURE-A & ETC.
W.P.NO.28576/2019
BETWEEN:
SJR PRIME CORPORATION PVT. LTD.
NO.1 SJR PRIMUS, 7TH FLOOR
KORAMANGALA INDUSTRIAL LAYOUT
7TH BLOCK, BANGALORE-560095
REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL HEAD.
... PETITIONER
(BY MR. DHYAN CHINNAPPA AND
MR. D.N. NANJUNDA REDDY, SENIOR COUNSELS FOR
SMT. GAWRY COOTAIAH, ADV. FOR
M/S CRESTA LAW PARTNERS)
AND:
1. PRANAY KUMAR
FLAT NO.107, OM RESIDENCY
NEW CHITRAGUPTA NAGAR RESIDENCY
14
PATNA, BIHAR-800200.
2. REAL ESTATE ADJUDICATING OFFICER
2ND FLOOR, SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK
UNITY BUILDING, CSI COMPOUND
3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD
BANGALORE-560027.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. VIKAS MAHENDRA, ADV., FOR
M/S. KEY STONE PARTNERS FOR R1
MR. PRASHANTH M.V. ADV., FOR R2)
----
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 25.04.2019 PASSED BY R-2 AT
ANNEXURE-A. GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO STAY THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 25.04.2019 PASSED BY R-2 AT
ANNEXURE-A & ETC.
W.P.NO.28577/2019
BETWEEN:
SJR PRIME CORPORATION PVT. LTD.
NO.1 SJR PRIMUS, 7TH FLOOR
KORAMANGALA INDUSTRIAL LAYOUT
7TH BLOCK, BANGALORE-560095
REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL HEAD.
... PETITIONER
(BY MR. DHYAN CHINNAPPA AND
MR. D.N. NANJUNDA REDDY, SENIOR COUNSELS FOR
SMT. GAWRY COOTAIAH, ADV. FOR
M/S CRESTA LAW PARTNERS)
AND:
1. ARUN SHARMA
A2, 506, ALPINE ECO APARTMENT
MARATHALLI OUTER RING ROAD
BENGALURU-560037.
2. REAL ESTATE ADJUDICATING OFFICER
2ND FLOOR, SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK
15
UNITY BUILDING, CSI COMPOUND
3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD
BANGALORE-560027.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY MR.VIKAS MAHENDRA, ADV., FOR
M/S.KEY STONE PARTNERS FOR R1
MR.PRASHANTH M.V. ADV., FOR R2)
----
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 25.04.2019 PASSED BY R-2 AT
ANNEXURE-A. GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO STAY THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 25.04.2019 PASSED BY R-2 AT
ANNEXURE-A & ETC.
W.P.NO.28689/2019
BETWEEN:
SJR PRIME CORPORATION PVT. LTD.
NO.1 SJR PRIMUS, 7TH FLOOR
KORAMANGALA INDUSTRIAL LAYOUT
7TH BLOCK, BANGALORE-560095
REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL HEAD.
... PETITIONER
(BY MR. DHYAN CHINNAPPA AND
MR. D.N. NANJUNDA REDDY, SENIOR COUNSELS FOR
SMT. GAWRY COOTAIAH, ADV. FOR
M/S CRESTA LAW PARTNERS)
AND:
1. ROHIT NIGAM
M. 30, KAILASH VIHAR
PANKI ROAD, KALYANPUR
KANPUR, UTTAR PRADESH-208017.
2. REAL ESTATE ADJUDICATING OFFICER
2ND FLOOR, SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK
UNITY BUILDING, CSI COMPOUND
16
3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD
BANGALORE-560027.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY MR.VIKAS MAHENDRA, ADV., FOR
M/S.KEY STONE PARTNERS FOR R1
MR.PRASHANTH M.V. ADV., FOR R2)
----
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 25.04.2019 PASSED BY R-2 AT
ANNEXURE-A. GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO STAY THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 25.04.2019 PASSED BY R-2 AT
ANNEXURE-A & ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
COMMON ORDER
FACTS:
In this batch of writ petition, since common question of law and fact arise for consideration they were heard analogously and are being decided by this order. For the facility of reference, facts from W.P.No.9849/2019 are being referred to. In these petitions, the petitioner is seeking quashment of the impugned order dated 30.01.2019 passed by respondent No.2. The petitioner and the land owner entered into an agreement for sale on 18.05.2015. Under the aforesaid agreement, the owners of the land 17 agreed to sell their undivided interest in the land for the project. The owners of the land entered into a Joint Development Agreement with the petitioner for the purposes of development of the lands. Thereafter, a construction agreement was entered into between the petitioner and respondent No.1 for construction of an apartment on 18.05.2015. The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) was published in the official gazette on 25.03.2016. Section 1(3) of the Act provides that the Act shall come into force on such date as the Central Government by Notification appoint. It is pleaded in the petition that provisions of Sections 2, 20-39, 41-58, 71- 78 & 81-92 were brought into force by way of Notification dated 26.04.2016. Thereafter, by a Notification dated 19.04.2017, the provisions of Sections 3 to 19, 40, 59-70 and 79-80 of the Act were brought into force. On 10.07.2017, the Government of Karnataka notified the Real Estate (Regulation and 18 Development) Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules' for short).
2. The respondent No.1 filed a complaint under Section 31 of the Act. The petitioner filed objections to the complaint filed by the respondent No.1. Thereafter the evidence was recorded by the Real Estate Adjudicating Officer and by impugned judgment dated 30.01.2019, the petitioner herein was directed to pay delay compensation in the form of interest at the rate of 10.75% for every month of delay on the respective amount paid by respondent No.1 to the developer. The petitioner was further directed to complete the project on or before 30.06.2019 and to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- by way of costs. In the aforesaid factual background, the petitioner has approached this court. SUBMISSIONS
3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner while inviting the attention of this Court to Section 2(c), Proviso to Section 3(1) of the Act, Section 4(2)(l)(C) 19 and Section 13 of the Act submitted that the Act is not retrospective or retroactive in nature. It is also submitted that the expression 'agreement for sale' as defined under Section 2(c) of the Act, refers to an agreement of sale, which may be prescribed under Section 13(2) of the Act. Therefore, the Act in question does not apply to agreements, which have been executed between the builder and the prospective purchaser prior to commencement of the Act. It is further submitted that decision of Bombay High Court in the case of 'NEELKAMAL REALTORS SUBURBAN PRV.T LTD., AND ANR. VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.' W.P.NO.2737/2017 DATED 06.12.2017 is not an authority for the proposition that the Act is retrospective in its operation. It is also submitted that the Act envisages the agreement, which is to be executed in the manner prescribed under the Act, has not been taken note of in the aforesaid decision. It is also submitted that though the Act provides for remedy of an appeal under Section 43 of the Act, yet the 20 Appellate Tribunal has not started functioning. It is also urged that Karnataka Appellate Tribunal has no jurisdiction to deal with the appeal, which may be filed by the petitioner as members of the Appellate Tribunal have already been appointed. Therefore, the petitioner does not have any alternative efficacious remedy. It is also urged that the impugned order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice as evidence adduced by the petitioner before the Adjudicating Officer of the Authority has been ignored by the Adjudicating Officer. It is further submitted that the findings recorded by the Adjudicating Officer suffer from the vice of non application of mind and are perverse.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submitted that from perusal of the proviso to Section 3 of the Act, it is evident that the Act applies for all the ongoing projects as well. It is further submitted that from conjoint reading of Proviso to Section 3 of the Act and Rule 4 of the Rules, it is evident 21 that the Act has retrospective operation. It is further submitted that Bombay High Court in the case of NEELKAMAL REALTORS SUBURBAN PVT. LTD. AND ANR. supra has already held that the Act has retrospective operation. It is further submitted that the petitioner has the alternative efficacious remedy of filing an appeal as the Appellate Tribunal is yet to be established. It is also submitted that the Adjudicating Officer has meticulously analyzed the material placed by the petitioner before the authority and has recorded the findings, which cannot be said to be perverse. In support of aforesaid submissions reliance has been placed on decision of the Supreme Court in 'PIONEER URBAN LAND & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. VS.
GOVINDAN RAGHAVAN', 2019 SCC ONLINE SC 458 and 'LAVASA CORPORATION LIMITED VS.
JITENDRA JAGDISH TULSIANI AND ANOTHER', 2018 SCC ONLINE BOM 2074.
22ANALYSIS:
5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel on both the sides and have perused the record. Before proceeding further with the matter, the contention of the petitioner that he has no remedy of filing an appeal under Section 43 of the Act may be examined as the Karnataka Real Estate Appellate Tribunal has already been established. Under Section 43 of the Act, the appropriate Government within one year from the date of coming into force of this Act, by Notification has to establish an Appellate Tribunal to be known as Real Estate Appellate Tribunal. In exercise of powers under Rule 84(1) of the Rules, the Government of Karnataka has framed the Rules viz., Karnataka Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Rules, 2017. It is not in dispute that the Chairman as well as members of the Appellate Tribunal have been appointed, however, the Appellate Tribunal is not functioning. Rule 31 of the Rules provides for the manner of selection of the members of the Appellate Tribunal. Rule 32(1) of the 23 Rules, which is relevant for the purposes of the controversy involved in the instant petition, reads as under :
32. Functioning of Appellate tribunal : (1) The office of the Appellate Tribunal shall be located at such place as may be determined by the Government of Karnataka by notification .
6. It is also not in dispute that no Notification under Rule 32(1) of the Rules has been issued by Government of Karnataka. Therefore, though the State Government has appointed the members of the Tribunal, yet the same has not been established in the State of Karnataka. The expression 'establish' read along with the provisions of the Rules framed by the State Government means that the Appellate Tribunal has to be made functional. Even otherwise, the expression 'establishment' is defined as an institution or place of business which has fixtures and organized staff. [See:Blacks'a Law Dictionary, VI Edition] 24 Admittedly, the Appellate Tribunal has not been made functional in the State of Karnataka inasmuch as no Notification under Rule 42 notifying the place of sitting of the Tribunal has been issued by the State Government.
7. At this stage, it is relevant to take note of relevant extract of Section 43(4) of the Act, which reads as under:
43. Establishment of Real Estate Appellate Tribunal:
(1) xxxxxx (2)xxxxxx (3) xxxxx (4) The appropriate Government of two or more States or Union territories may, if it deems fit, establish one single appellate Tribunal:
Provided that, until the establishment of an appellate tribunal under this section, the appropriate Government shall designate, by order, any appellate tribunal functioning under any law for the time being 25 in force, to be the appellate tribunal to hear appeals under the Act.
8. Undisputedly, in exercise of aforesaid powers, the State Government has designated Karnataka Appellate Tribunal to hear the appeals under the Act. The aforesaid designation still remains in force as the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal has not been established in the State of Karnataka. A notification is issued under Rule 42 of the Rules, the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal lack jurisdiction to deal with the appeal under the Act.Until and unless the Tribunal is established the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal will have jurisdiction to deal with the appeal arising under the Act. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that he has no alternative efficacious remedy of filing an appeal does not deserve acceptance.
9. It is well settled in law that where the statute creates the right and provides for a forum of redressal of grievances of the parties, the parties should resort to 26 that forum and the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be permitted to be invoked. [SEE: 'HAMEED KUNJU VS. NAZIM', (2017) 8 SCC 611 and 'AUTHORIZED OFICER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE AND ANOTHER VS. MATHEW K.C.', (2018) 3 SCC 85.]
10. Therefore, since, the petitioner has an alternative efficacious remedy under Section 43 of the Act, I am not inclined to entertain the writ petitions. Needles to state that in case the petitioner files an appeal under Section 43 of the Act, before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal within a period of two weeks form today along with the application for stay, the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties shall decide the application for stay expeditiously in accordance with law and proceed to decide the appeal expeditiously in accordance with law. Since, the petitioner is being 27 relegated to the alternative remedy of appeal, and it is open for them to raise all the contentions, which have been raised by them before this court in an appeal preferred by them, it is not necessary for this court to deal with the contentions raised by the rival parties.
With the aforesaid directions, the petitions are disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE SS