M/S Coramandel Infrastructure Pvt. ... vs City Municipal Council & Anr on 20 November, 2012

[Cites 3, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

M/S Coramandel Infrastructure Pvt. ... vs City Municipal Council & Anr on 20 November, 2012

Bench: B.S.Patil

                           1


            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

              CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA

       DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2012

                        BEFORE

            THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL

               WP.No.86509/2012 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

M/S CORAMANDEL INFRASTRUCTURE PVT.LTD,
PLOT NO.319, 2ND FLOOR,
AYYAPPA SOCIETY, NEAR YSR STATUE,
MADHAPUR,
HYDERABAD - 500 081.
REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

Mr.L.V.SUNIL S/O L.V.SUBBA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT: 38 YEARS,
OCC: MANAGING DIRECTOR,
PLOT NO: 435, ROAD NO.20,
JUBLEE HILLS,
HYDERABAD-500 033.

                                    ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI.S.M.CHANDRASHEKAR,SR.COUNSEL
ON BEHALF OF SRIYUTHS R.J.BHUSARE & B.V.JALDE, ADVS)

AND:

1.     CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL,
       RAICHUR-584 101.
       REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

2.     THE GENERAL MANAGER,
       ANDRA BANK
       SOMAJIGUDA BRANCH,
       ASTRAL HEIGHTS,
                                                                  .
                                2



      ROAD NO.1 BANJARA HILLS,
      HYDERABAD-500 034 (A.P)
                                 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.CHAND ABDUL RUBB, ADV FOR R-1
    SRI KRUPA SAGAR PATIL, ADV FOR R-2)

      This Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorari or any
other appropriate writ as order or direction to quash the order
dated 8.11.2012 adjourning the matter without passing any
order on the interlocutory application filed U/o 39 Rule 1 and 2
in O.S.No.431/2012 as illegal produced.

      This petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing this day,
the Court made the following:

                             ORDER

The grievance made in this writ petition is with regard to the order dated 8.11.2012 passed by the Court below on the interlocutory application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff U/o 39 Rules 1 and 2 in O.S.No.431/2012, directing emergent notice without granting an ex-parte ad interim order of temporary injunction.

2. It is noticed that the first respondent - City Municipal Corporation, Raichur has filed caveat in the suit and it is for this reason the court has not granted an ex- parte ad interim order of temporary injunction, but has issued .

emergent notice to the defendants. In this writ petition, on 09.11.2012, when the matter came up for preliminary hearing, this court while directing issuance of emergent notice regarding rule, has noticed that the first respondent has already invoked the bank guarantee for a sum of Rs. 5,00,00,000/- out of Rs.8,28,00,000/- soon after the order was passed by the Civil court declining the prayer for ex- parte ad interim order of temporary injunction. This Court has also granted an interim order directing the respondent

- Municipality not to invoke the remaining amount subject matter of bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner till the next date of hearing. The said interim order is operating as on today. As submitted by the Counsel for the parties, the suit is adjourned to 28.11.2012 for consideration of the interim application filed by the petitioner seeking grant of temporary injunction.

3. In these circumstances, in my considered view it is not proper for this Court to examine the grievance of the petitioner on merits as it is for the Court below to consider the application filed for grant of temporary .

injunction and pass appropriate orders after hearing both the parties. Hence, I deem it just and proper to direct both the parties to appear before the Court below on 28.11.2012 and argue the matter on the application filed for temporary injunction. The trial court is directed to pass appropriate orders on the application expeditiously at any rate within a period of one week from 28.11.2012. Till then, the interim arrangement made by way of the interim order granted by this Court will continue. It is made clear that the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the interim arrangement made by this Court by granting an interim order. The Trial Court shall decide the application on merits. Petition is accordingly disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE MSR

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court