Karnataka High Court
Hm Infratech Private Limited vs Hm Tambourine Apartment Owners ... on 12 April, 2018
Author: B.V.Nagarathna
Bench: B.V.Nagarathna
-: 1 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA
WRIT PETITION No.39628/2014 (CS-RES)
BETWEEN:
HM INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED
FORMERLY KNOWN AS
M/S. HM ESTATES AND PROPERTIES
HM GROUP, NO.14,
HM GENEVA HOUSE,
CUNNINGHAM ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 052.
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTORS.
a) MR. H.J. SIWANI
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
S/O. LATE J.K. SIWANI
b) MR. M.J. SIWANI
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
S/O. LATE J.K. SIWANI. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI: VIVEK B.N., ADVOCATE FOR SRI ABHINAV R.,
ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. HM TAMBOURINE APARTMENT OWNERS ASSOCIATION
HM TAMBOURINE
NO.28, KANAKAPURA ROAD,
6TH PHASE, J.P. NAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 078.
REPRESENTED BY IT SECRETARY.
2. M/S. PEDIGREE CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD.,
COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER
COMPANIES ACT 1956,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
NO.13/C, SHRUNAGAR SHOPPING
COMPLEX, 80, M.G.ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
-: 2 :-
REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR
MR. NAZEER AHMED.
3. THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR
OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,
CENTRAL REGION,
NO.146, 3RD MAIN ROAD,
8TH CROSS, MARGOSA ROAD,
MALLESHWARAM,
BANGALORE - 560 003. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI: SIDDAPPA V.D., ADVOCATE FOR SRI MITHUN
GERAHALLI, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-1 & R-2; SRI VIVEK HOLLA,
HCGP FOR R-3)
*****
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER DATED 23.06.2014 PASSED BY THE R-3 VIDE ANNX-D
AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Though this matter is listed for preliminary hearing in 'B' group, the learned counsel for the respective parties submit that since the dispute between the parties have been amicably settled and joint memo has been filed, the matter may be disposed of in terms of the joint memo dated 11.4.2018.
2. The petitioner herein has assailed order dated 23.6.2014 passed by the third respondent ( Annexure D).
The said order has been passed under the provisions of the -: 3 :- Karnataka Flats (Regulation of ;the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management, and Transfer ) Act, 1972.
By the said order, a direction was issued to the petitioner herein to furnish the accounts regarding the expenditure met from the corpus funds within 30 days from the date of the order i.e., 23.6.2014.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have submitted that though the mediation process has failed, nevertheless, the parties have settled their dispute amicably and a joint memo has been filed which is signed by the respective parties (along with office seal) and counsel. The same is taken on record. Sri Pradeep Rao, the President of the first respondent - Apartment Owners Association is present in the Court.
4. Learned counsel for the respective parties submit that since the first respondent has no claim against the petitioner or the second respondent, the writ petition may be disposed of in terms of the joint memo. The Joint Memo dated 11.4.2018 reads thus:-
-: 4 :-"The Petitioner and the Respondent No.1 humbly submit as follows:
(a) The Respondent No.1 had filed a dispute in DRBC/C/3/13-14 invoking Section 5 of the Karnataka Ownership Flats (Regulation of the promotion of the Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1972 before the Respondent No.2 i.e., the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies seeking a direction against the Petitioner herein to provide with the disclosures of the deposits collected towards the Corpus Fund collected by the Petitioner from owners of apartments in H.M.Tambourine, to settle accounts and other consequential relief/s. The said dispute came to be allowed by the Respondent No.2 vide Order dated 23.06.2014 in spite of the objections raised by the Petitioner regarding the jurisdiction of the adjudicating authority.
The present Writ Petition is filed challenging the aforementioned Order dated 23.06.2014 passed by the Respondent No.2 in dispute No.DRBC/C/3/13-14.
(b) During the pendency of the present Writ Petition, the Petitioner and the Respondent No.1 have held discussions and have amicably settled the dispute with respect -: 5 :- refund of corpus fund, by virtue of Settlement Agreement dated 16.06.2017, so as to put a quietus to the present matter. A copy of the settlement Agreement dated 16.06.2017 is annexed herewith along with the present Memo.
(c) In the light of the Settlement Agreement dated 16.06.2017, the Respondent No.1 affirm that there shall be no claims individually by the Apartment owners or by the Association beyond the amount so claimed arising out of Corpus Fund or prior handing over maintenance dues and subsequent to handing over maintenance dues. Similarly, the Petitioner affirms that it shall have no claim over the association or individual apartment owners regarding maintenance dues more than the amount. Therefore, since the aforesaid matters are settled between the Petitioner and Respondent No.1, the Respondent No.1 hereby withdraws the dispute filed by the Respondent No.1 before the Respondent No.2 in DRBC/C/2013-14
(d) Both Petitioner and Respondent No.1 hereby affirm that the Settlement Agreement dated 16.06.2017 is limited to the issues of corpus fund and maintenance dues as mutually settled herein. The petitioner and the -: 6 :- Respondent No.1 state that other pending issues, including handing over the other maters are outside the scope of the Settlement Agreement dated 16.06.2017 and shall be dealt separately.
(e) In view of the Settlement Agreement dated 16.06.2017 entered between the Petitioner and Respondent No.1, the Respondent No.1 has no objection for the Petitioner to withdraw the present Writ Petition. Therefore, the present Writ Petition does not survive for consideration and this Hon'ble Court be pleased to dispose of the same as settled out of Court in terms of the Settlement Agreement dated 16.06.2017.
The memo may be taken on record and the present Writ Petition may be disposed of in the interest and equity."
5. The memo is taken on record. In light of the joint memo filed pursuant to settlement arrived at between the parties, the writ petition is disposed off in terms of the joint memo as I find no legal impediment to do so.
Sd/-
JUDGE nm