Karnataka High Court
Satish Talikota vs Elita Promenade Apartment on 21 August, 2017
Author: A.S.Bopanna
Bench: A.S.Bopanna
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21st DAY OF AUGUST, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S.BOPANNA
WRIT PETITION NOS.36542/2017
& 37395-396/2017(GM-Res)
BETWEEN :
1. Satish Talikota,
Aged 47 years,
Son of Ravindra Talikote,
A9-904, Elita Promenade,
JP Nagar, 7th Phase,
Bangalore - 560 078.
2. Mayank Joshi,
Aged around 39 years,
Son of D.S.Joshi,
A3-1704, Elita Promenade,
JP Nagar, 7th Phase,
Bangalore - 560 078.
3. Krishnan Kailash,
Aged around 68 years,
Son of Late C.O. Krishnan,
A4 - 805, Elita Promenade,
JP Nagar, 7th Phase,
Bangalore - 560 078. ...PETITIONERS
(By Sri.D.R.P. Babu, Adv.)
-2-
AND :
1. Elita Promenade Apartment
Owners Association (EPAOA),
7th Phase, J.P. Nagar,
Bangalore - 560 078,
Represented by its Secretary,
R.P.Malik,
Aged about 60 years,
2. Dinesh S.H.,
Aged about 36 years,
S/o. Not Known,
A5-302, Elita Promenade,
JP Nagar, 7th Phase,
Bangalore - 560 078.
3. S.Srirangarajan,
Aged about 38 years,
S/o. Not known,
A8-902, Elita Promenade,
JP Nagar, 7th Phase,
Bangalore - 560 078.
4. Mahesh Satyanarayana,
Aged about 41 years,
S/o. Not known,
B6-1302, Elita Promenade,
JP Nagar, 7th Phase,
Bangalore - 560 078. ...RESPONDENTS
. . . .
These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226
and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash
the notification dated 07.08.2017 and notification dated
-3-
06.08.2017 at Annexure `B' and `A' respectively issued
by respondent No.1 and etc.
These writ petitions coming on for preliminary
hearing, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
The petitioners are before this Court assailing the notifications dated 07.08.2017 and 06.08.2017 as at Annexures `B' and `A' respectively. In that light the petitioners are further seeking issue of direction to the 1st respondent to implement the directions issued by the Court below in O.S. No.8192/2011.
2. The petitioners herein are the owners of certain apartments in the building known as 'Elita Promenade', the details of which are indicated in the cause-title of the petition. In view of certain disputes between the apartment owners and the developers, a suit in O.S.No.8192/2011 is instituted and the same is pending. Despite certain interim clarifications being issued by the Court below in the said suit, according to -4- the petitioners, the respondents have not been adhering to the same and as such are violating the orders/clarifications issued by the Court below. In that view, it is contended that the notifications as issued at Annexures `B' and 'A' respectively are contrary to law and therefore, they are liable to be quashed. It is in that light the petitioners are seeking implementation of the orders of the Court below.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, I have perused the petition papers. The fact that a suit is still pending consideration before the Court below is not in dispute. It is in that suit, relating to certain disputes between the parties the interim directions/clarifications are issued by the Court below. In such circumstance this Court in a writ petition of the present nature cannot interfere in the matter as it is essentially a dispute between the apartment owners and the Association which is formed for the benefit of the -5- apartment owners. In that light when a competent civil suit is pending and if the directions issued therein are not adhered to by the respondents, the petitioners would have the liberty of filing an appropriate application in the said suit itself seeking for appropriate directions from the Court below or to take such steps to initiate action against the persons who have disregarded the order passed by the Court below. Hence, reserving such liberty to the petitioners to avail their remedies in accordance with law in the said proceedings or any other appropriate proceedings and leaving open all contentions in that regard, these petitions stand disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE SPS