M/S Suraj Condominiums Private Limited vs Karnataka State Industrial Investment on 15 September, 2016

[Cites 2, Cited by 19]

Karnataka High Court

M/S Suraj Condominiums Private Limited vs Karnataka State Industrial Investment on 15 September, 2016

Bench: A.S.Bopanna

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 15th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016

                         BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S.BOPANNA

      WRIT PETITION NO.13504/2008(GM-Res)

BETWEEN :

1.     M/s.Suraj Condominiums
       Private Limited,
       No.264, 6th Cross,
       Domlur Layout,
       Bangalore - 560 071,
       Represented by its
       Managing Director
       Sri.Ram Mohan Menon.

2.     Shri. Ram Mohan Menon,
       S/o.Late A.D.Menon,
       Aged about 54 years,
       No.58/A, 1st Stage,
       Domlur Layout,
       Bangalore - 560 071.              ...PETITIONERS

       (By Sri.Chandrakanth Patil, Adv. for
           Sri.N.Vishwanath, Adv.)

AND :

Karnataka State Industrial
Investment and Development
Corporation Limited,
                           -2-


"Kanija Bhavan", No.49,
4th Floor, East Wing,
Race Course Road,
Bangalore - 560 001
Rep. by its General Manager,
Shri S.Ravishankar.                      ...RESPONDENT

     (By Sri.T.P.Vivekananda, Adv. for
         Sri.P.S.Manjunath &
         Sri.H.C.Shivaramu, Advs.)
                       . . . .

      This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the
respondent to dispose the 12 flats described in the
schedule to writ petition in association with the
petitioners and adjust the realised amount as against
the actual dues on calculation as per the contract and
intimate the petitioners the balance amount payable so
as to clear the same and consequently quash Annexure
`G' dated 09.09.2008 issued by the respondent.

     This writ petition coming on for hearing, this day,
the Court made the following:


                      ORDER

The petitioners are before this Court seeking that the respondent be directed to dispose of 12 flats described in the schedule hereunder in association with the petitioners and adjust the realized amount as -3- against the actual dues on calculation as per the contract and intimate the petitioners the balance amount payable so as to clear the same and consequently, the petitioners have sought that the notice dated 09.09.2008 at Annexure `G' be quashed.

2. The petitioners had availed loan from the respondent - Corporation. The very averments in the petition would disclose that the amount was outstanding and the respondent had initiated steps to recover the same. It is in that regard, the notice dated 09.09.2008 (Annexure `G') had been issued to the petitioners intimating the amount due as on that date and that action would be taken for recovery of the same. At that stage, the petitioners apprehending that the flats would be sold for a price, which may not be desirable was before this Court seeking that direction be issued to dispose of the flats in association with the petitioners. At the first instance, the petition had been disposed of -4- on taking note of the directions and thereafter on review petition being filed by the respondent, the petition has been restored. Be that as it may, the fact that the major portion of the flats has been sold cannot be in dispute.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners no doubt would contend that all the flats have not been sold and only about nine flats are sold and as such, the prayer made in the petition needs consideration.

4. Even if such contention is kept in view, what is necessary to be noticed is that through the notice dated 09.09.2008 which is impugned in the instant petition, as on that day, the amount due at Rs.2,18,25,039/- was indicated. The entire due has not been liquidated even though nine flats have been sold. If that be the position, even if the remaining three flats are not taken into consideration for decision of the instant petition, the fact that the respondent will have to initiate such action for recovery of the remaining amounts after -5- intimating the same to the petitioners cannot be disputed. If that be the position, even if the three flats as indicated above is excluded, the prayer as made in the petition would not survive for consideration at this juncture, since in view of a portion of the amount being recovered by sale of the nine flats and the extent to which the respondent - Corporation has appropriated the amount to the account of the petitioner is a subsequent development, that would have to be taken note by the respondent and after issuing a fresh notice to the petitioners, call upon them to pay the balance amount. The option available to the respondents to recover the said amount in accordance with law is either by invoking Section 29 of the SFC Act or by initiating such other proceedings under the said Act. Therefore, retaining the instant petition on record at this juncture would not arise.

The petition is disposed of with liberty to the respondent to quantify the amount which is due as on -6- today and intimate the same to the petitioners and thereafter proceed further in accordance with law, the contentions in that regard are however left open.

Sd/-

JUDGE SPS

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court