Bangalore District Court
M/S Anu Builders & Developers vs M/S Vasathi Housing & Infra Pvt.Ltd on 7 September, 2018
IN THE COURT OF THE XXXVIII ADDITIONAL CITY
CIVIL JUDGE AT BENGALURU CITY
Dated this the 28th Day of August 2018
Present
Sri Devanand Puttappa Nayak B.A., LL.B.,(Spl.)
XXXVIII Additional City Civil & Judge,Bangalore City.
A.A.NO.271/2018
Applicants:
1. M/s Anu Builders & Developers
represented by its Managing Partner
Mr.M.Venkataram, S/o K.Muniyappa,
aged about 48 years, No.83/1, Mallappa
Layout, Babusapalya Post, Kalyannagar,
Bengaluru-560 043
2. M.Venkatram Mr.M.Venkataram, S/o
K.Muniyappa, aged about 48 years
3. Ashok Kumar, S/o Narayanaswamy,
aged about 30 years
4. M.Mylari S/o K.Muniyappa, aged about
44 years
All are residing at No.83/1, Mallappa
Layout, Babusapalya Post, Kayannagar,
Bengaluru-560 043
[by advocate Sri G.S.Ravishankar]
V/s
Respondent:
M/s Vasathi Housing & Infra Pvt.Ltd., a
Company incorporated under the Companies
2 A.A.No.271/2018
Act, 1956, having its registered office at No.6-3-
852/2, 204, Vishwa Central, Near Lal Bunlow,
Ameerpet, Hyderabad-560 082 and also branch
office at Sy.No.84/1, No.37/1-84/1,
Rachenahalli, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East
Taluk, Bengaluru-560 045 represented by Chief
Operating Officer Sri Ravindrakumar.
[by advocate Sri K.S.Devraj]
ORDER ON I.A.NO.1
Applicants:
M/s Anu Builders & Developers & others
V/s
Opponent/Respondent:
M/s Vasathi Housing & Infra Pvt.Ltd.,
*******
This is an Arbitration Application filed by the
Applicants against the Respondent u/S 9(II)(C)(D) &
(E) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act,1996.
2. Along with the petition, the Applicants
also filed I.A.No.1 u/S 9 of the Arbitration Act r/w
Rules 9 & 10 of the High Court of Karnataka
Arbitration(Proceedings before the Courts) Rules,
requesting the Court to pass an order of temporary
injunction restraining the Respondents, their agents,
men or anybody under or through them from
3 A.A.No.271/2018
alienating/encumbering/selling any apartments in
the schedule property fallen to the share of the
Applicants as per the Allocation Agreement
dt.16.5.2013 to any third party, pending disposal of
the petition, in the interest of justice and equity.
3. In support of the application, the Managing
Director of the 1st Applicant and 2nd Applicant filed
his sworn affidavit for himself and on behalf of other
Applicants stating that the Applicants have entered
into the Joint Development Agreement dt.6.8.2010
with the Respondent and the Respondent was
permitted to develop land measuring 3 acres 12
guntas bearing Municipal Corporation No. 37/1/84/1
and 2165/84/1 carved out of converted land in
Sy.No.84/1, situated at Rachenahalli village,
K.R.Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk. The
Respondent was permitted to construct apartments
over the schedule property in accordance with the
terms of Joint Development Agreement and the
Respondent was required to take licence and
permission from the competent authority and was
4 A.A.No.271/2018
supposed to deliver the constructed area pertaining to
the share of the Applicants within thirty months from
the date of commencement of the construction. But
there was delay by the Respondent in securing the
sanctioned plan.
It is further submitted in the sworn affidavit that
despite the delay made by the Respondent, a
Supplementary-cum-allocation agreement was
entered between Applicants and Respondent and a
further period of 30 months was given to the
Respondent to complete the construction, but subject
to Clause 9 and 17 of the Joint Development
Agreement dt.6.8.2010. But in spite of giving
extension of time to complete the construction of the
apartment and despite the fact that as per clause 17
of the Joint Development Agreement the Applicants
are entitled to take over construction work upon
failure of Respondent to do so and despite repeated
demands in this regard, the Respondent failed to
complete the construction work. To cover up the delay
and latches on his part, the Respondent issued a
5 A.A.No.271/2018
letter dt.7.11.2017 and a legal notice dt.8.12.2017
making frivolous allegations and demanding
appointment of Arbitrator. The said legal notice was
suitably replied by the Applicants. Hence the
Respondent filed CMP No.54/2018 which is pending
for consideration and the Arbitral Tribunal is
constituted. Thereafter the Respondent hastily has
been going on with the completion of the apartments
fallen to his share and making attempt to alienate
those apartments. Having realized the real intention
of the Respondent, the Applicants caused legal notice
dt.20.6.2018 to the Respondent demanding to cease
executing any Sale Deed in respect of apartments
fallen to his share in the schedule property and
demanded the Respondent to complete construction
of the apartments fallen to the share of Applicants. In
para 7 of the Notice dt.20.6.2018 the Applicants
expressed their willingness to reserve five apartments
bearing Nos.C-305, C-1401, C-606 and C-102
towards any liability that may arise on their account
and for settlement of the claims. But despite receiving
6 A.A.No.271/2018
the said Notice, the Respondent has not completed
the construction and apart from that used shady
material for construction. At present the Respondent
is on the verge of selling the apartments fallen to their
share. Hence the Applicants have filed this
application for grant of ad interim relief, as prayed
for.
3. The Respondent has filed objection to the
main petition and also Memo to consider the same as
objection to I.A.No.1. In the objection at para 31 it is
contended by the Respondent that the Respondent
was to deliver the owner's constructed area within 30
months from the date of commencement of
construction with a grace period of six months and
also with the mutual understanding between the
parties to the said Joint Development Agreement, the
said period could be extended as property the
prevailing conditions. Clause 17 of the Joint
Development Agreement deals with delay in
compensation of the project. In terms of clause 4(e) of
the Joint Development Agreement, the Applicants had
7 A.A.No.271/2018
given consent for amalgamation of Schedule A & B
properties. As per Clause 4(e) of the Joint
Development Agreement, the owners have no
objection if the builder wishes to develop the adjacent
property under a separate Joint Development
Agreement with its owners and common sanction
plan from the concerned authorities may also be
obtained and a common structure can be erected by
the builder without affecting the shares of the owners
herein. The owners do not have any objections to the
builder amalgamating the schedule property with
adjoining land bearing Municipal
No.2164/84/1(portion of and bearing Sy.No.84/1), for
the purpose of development and construction of the
apartment complex.
In terms of clause 4(e) of the Joint Development
Agreement, the Respondent had entered into Joint
Development Agreement dt.6.8.2010 with
Mr.A.T.Babu Rao and Mr.A.T.Shankar Rao with
respect of Schedule A property. But said Mr.A.T.Babu
Rao and Mr.A.T.Shankar Rao, on 24.12.2011, revoked
8 A.A.No.271/2018
the General Power of Attorney dt.6.8.2010 and
informed the same to the Respondent through legal
notice. Hence the Respondent initiated Arbitration
proceedings to cancel the Deed of Revocation of Power
of Attorney. Due to revocation of General Power of
Attorney and arbitration proceedings the construction
work was delayed. Apart from this the Applicants
intentionally suppressed the fact that there was an
alleged Agreement of Sale executed in favour of one
Mr.Ramachandra Shetty by the vendor of the
Applicants. The Respondent spent huge amount of
time defending the suit filed by said Mr.Ramachandra
Shetty and the same is pending adjudication.
It is further contended by the Respondent that
in respect of schedule 'B' property, the daughter of
one Mr.Chinnathayappa who is the vendor of
Applicants had filed a suit for partition and the same
is pending for adjudication. In view of pendency of
aforesaid litigations, the Respondent could not
achieve the target in relation to the flats construction
upon schedule C property. The Applicants
9 A.A.No.271/2018
Mr.A.T.Babu Rao and Mr.A.T.Shankar Rao are solely
responsible for the delay in completing the apartment
complex.
It is further contended by the Respondent that
despite pendency of the above litigations, the
Respondent completed the construction of the
apartment complex. Further it is contended that in
terms of clause 13 of the Joint Development
Agreement dt.6.8.2010 the Respondent has paid a
sum of Rs.2,60,00,000/- to the Applicants and the
same shall be refunded by the Applicants in the
following manner:-
1. 50% shall be refunded to the Respondent
upon completion of all slabs.
2. 30% shall be refunded to the Respondent
upon completion of all brick work, external
and internal plastering work;
3. 20% shall be refunded to the Respondent
upon completion of painting.
But the Applicants did not return the said amount.
Therefore the Respondent sent a letter dt.8.11.2017
demanding the Applicants to refund the refundable
security deposit and other deposits, to which the
10 A.A.No.271/2018
Applicants sent a frivolous reply illegally withholding
the refundable security deposit of Rs.2,60,00,000/-.
Further it is also contended by the Respondent
that the Respondent,on the request of the Applicants,
had also paid a sum of Rs.2,94,46,985/- to the
Applicants towards advance sale consideration in
respect of the flats fallen to the share of the
Applicants. But the Applicants did not execute
necessary documents to convey the flats for the value
of advance amount paid to them. As such, the
Applicants are also liable to refund the said advance
amount of Rs.2,94,46,985/- with interest from the
date of payment till realization.
At para 32 of the objection, the Respondent
contended that the service tax department had issued
a notice dt.19.4.2016 to the Respondent to pay a sum
of Rs.3,76,31,415/- towards service tax with respect
to the flats that have fallen to the share of Applicants
and the same has been communicated to the
Applicants. Despite receipt of the information, the
11 A.A.No.271/2018
Applicants have not paid the said service tax and also
not responded to the said notice.
At para 33 of the objection, the Respondent
denied the allegation made in the petition that the
Respondent has completely neglected the
construction and completion of the apartments fallen
to the share of Applicants. Further it is submitted by
the Respondent that the construction with regards to
apartments situated at A & B blocks were completed
and the purchasers of respective apartments have
performed house warming ceremony. In so far as C
block apartments is concerned, 90% work has been
completed and only 10% works are remaining.
At para 34 of the objection, the Respondent
submitted that the works relating to completion of
slabs, brick work, external and internal plastering
and also painting are completed. In view of the same,
as per clause 13 of the Joint Development Agreement
dt.6.8.2010 the interest free refundable security
deposit was to be refunded to the Respondent by the
Applicants, but the Applicants have failed to do so.
12 A.A.No.271/2018
At para 35 of the objection, it is submitted by
the Respondent that since the delay was caused in
construction work due to revocation of General Power
of Attorney by the Applicants, Supplementary-cum-
allocation Agreement dt.16.5.2013 was entered
between the Applicants and the Respondent to make
up the lost time and to complete construction. The
said fact has not been brought to the notice of the
Court while obtaining ad interim exparte order. The
relevant and material facts have been deliberately
suppressed by the Applicants to obtain an exparte ad
interim injunction without giving an opportunity of
being heard to the Respondent.
Further at para 37 of the objection,the
Respondent took contention that they have invested
huge sums of money in the above mentioned project
and have completed most of the construction work
along with all the amenities well within the terms of
Joint Development Agreement dt.6.8.2010 and
Supplementary-cum-allocation Agreement
dt.16.5.2013. Further the proceedings initiated by the
13 A.A.No.271/2018
Applicants Mr.A.T.Babu Rao and Mr.A.T.Shankar Rao
have also caused huge delay in completing the
project. The purchasers of the apartments have
initiated complaints before the Real Estate Regulatory
Authority and claiming compensation for the delay in
completing the project. The Applicants Mr.A.T.Babu
Rao and Mr.A.T.Shankar Rao are solely responsible
for the delay in completing the project. Therefore the
Applicants Mr.A.T.Babu Rao and Mr.A.T.Shankar Rao
are jointly and severally liable to pay the proposed
award/order passed by the Regulatory authority in
favour of the purchasers of the apartments. Therefore
the Respondent requested the Court to dismiss the
petition filed by the petitioners u/S 9(II)(C)(D) & (E) of
the Arbitration & Conciliation Act,1996.
5. Heard arguments on both sides.
6. On perusal of the contents of the
application and also objection filed by the
Respondent, the following Points arise for my
consideration as under:-
14 A.A.No.271/2018
(1) Whether the Petitioners/applicants
prove that there is a prima facie
case lies in their favour?
(2) Whether the Petitioners/applicants
further prove where does the
balance of convenience lies?
(3) Whether the Petitioners/applicants
prove that they will be put to
irreparable loss and injury, if the
petition filed by them u/S 9(II)(C)(D)
& (E) of the Arbitration &
Conciliation Act,1996 is not
allowed?
(4) To what Order?
7. My findings on the above Points are as
follows:-
(1) In the Affirmative.
(2) In the Affirmative
(3) In the Affirmative
(4) As per final order,for the following
reasons:-
REASONS
POINTS 1 TO 3:
8. This is an Arbitration Application filed by
the petitioners/Applicants against the
Respondent/Opponent u/S 9(II)(C)(D) & (E) of the
15 A.A.No.271/2018
Arbitration & Conciliation Act,1996 requesting the
Court to pass an order of temporary injunction
restraining the Respondents, their agents, men or
anybody under or through them from
alienating/encumbering/selling any apartments in
the schedule property fallen to the share of the
Applicants as per the Allocation Agreement
dt.16.5.2013 to any third party.
9. So here after amendment of Arbitration &
Conciliation(Amendment) Act,2015(3 of 2016). As per
Sec.9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, the
Interim measures, by Court.--[(1)]A party may, before
or during arbitral proceedings or at any time after the
making of the arbitral award but before it is enforced
in accordance with section 36, apply to a court--
(ii) for an interim measure of protection in
respect of any of the following matters, namely:--
(a) the preservation, interim custody or sale
of any goods which are the subject-matter of the
arbitration agreement;
(b) securing the amount in dispute in the
arbitration;
16 A.A.No.271/2018
(c) the detention, preservation or inspection
of any property or thing which is the subject-
matter of the dispute in arbitration, or as to
which any question may arise therein and
authorising for any of the aforesaid purposes
any person to enter upon any land or building in
the possession of any party, or authorising any
samples to be taken or any observation to be
made, or experiment to be tried, which may be
necessary or expedient for the purpose of
obtaining full information or evidence;
(d) interim injunction or the appointment of
a receiver;
(e) such other interim measure of
protection as may appear to the court to be just
and convenient, and the Court shall have the
same power for making orders as it has for the
purpose of, and in relation to, any proceedings
before it.
[(2)]Where, before the commencement of the
arbitral proceedings, a Court passes an order for any
interim measure of protection under sub-section (1),
the arbitral proceedings shall be commenced within a
period of ninety days from the date of such order or
within such further time as the Court may determine.
17 A.A.No.271/2018
10. Here by filing this Arbitration Application,
the grievance of the Applicants is that they have
entered into the Joint Development Agreement
dt.6.8.2010 with the Respondent and the Respondent
was permitted to develop land measuring 3 acres 12
guntas bearing Municipal Corporation No. 37/1/84/1
and 2165/84/1 carved out of converted land in
Sy.No.84/1, situated at Rachenahalli village,
K.R.Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk. As per the
averments made in the petition,the Respondents were
permitted to construct apartments over the schedule
property in accordance with the terms of Joint
Development Agreement and the Respondent was
required to take licence and permission from the
competent authority and was supposed to deliver the
constructed area pertaining to the share of the
Applicants within thirty months from the date of
commencement of the construction. But here, as per
the averments made in the petition, the Respondent
delayed in securing the sanctioned plan, and despite
the delay made by the Respondent, a Supplementary-
18 A.A.No.271/2018
cum-allocation Agreement dt.16.5.2013 was entered
between Applicants and Respondent and a further
period of 30 months was given to the Respondent to
complete the construction, subject to Clause 9 and 17
of the Joint Development Agreement dt.6.8.2010. But
the Respondent failed to complete the construction
work. To cover up the delay and latches on his part,
the Respondent issued a letter dt.7.11.2017 and a
legal notice dt.8.12.2017 to the Applicants making
frivolous allegations and demanding appointment of
Arbitrator and the said legal notice was suitably
replied by the Applicants.
11. In page 4 and 5 of the petition, it is
contended by the petitioners that as per
Supplementary-cum-allocation Agreement
dt.16.5.2013, the Respondent hastily completed the
construction of the apartments fallen to his share and
making attempt to alienate those apartments, without
constructing the flats which have been fallen to the
share of Applicants.
19 A.A.No.271/2018
12. Here in fact looking to the objection filed by
the Respondent to the main petition, he admitted that
there is a delay in obtaining the licence and
permission from the competent authority and
therefore the apartment pertaining to C block has not
been completed. Here the Respondent relied on the
photographs produced along with the objections
contending that as per the photographs, all the work
pertaining to electricity and also water supply has
been completed and the delay was caused only due to
the revocation of General Power of Attorney by
Mr.A.T.Babu Rao and Mr.A.T.Shankar Rao.
13. So here admittedly the CMP No.54/2018
was filed by the present Respondent against the
present Petitioners and others before the Hon'ble High
Court of Karnataka u/s 6 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act. Accordingly one retired Hon'ble
District Judge has been appointed as Arbitrator as
per the Order passed in CMP No.54/2018
dt.27.6.2018. But here the allegations made by the
Petitioners in the petition and also the admissions
20 A.A.No.271/2018
admitted in the objection filed by the Respondent at
para 34 and 35, goes to show that there is delay in
construction of the apartment in C block. No doubt by
amalgamating the extent of the property in A & B
blocks, 'C' block has been formed. Here admittedly
the Applicants issued Notice to the Respondent
dt.20.6.2018 calling upon them to give account with
regard to funds raised from different financial
institutions and also funds available on hand of the
Respondent and also give account with regard to the
completed super structure of the flats and also
account with regard to remaining constructed flats.
But the Respondent has not given any appropriate
answer for the letter got issued by the Respondent
dt.20.6.2018. In para 34 and 35 of the objection filed
by the Respondent, he categorically admitted that
delay was caused due to delay in obtaining
permission and licence from the competent authority,
but it is contention of the Respondent that due to
revocation of power of attorney by one of the
Applicants Mr.A.T.Babu Rao and Mr.A.T.Shankar
21 A.A.No.271/2018
Rao, the delay is caused. So this goes to show that
there is latches or delay caused by the side of the
Respondent due to which the flats pertaining to C
block have not at all been completed.
14. Here one of the Applicants by name
Mr.Venkatram filed his sworn affidavit along with the
list of apartments completed and fit for occupation
and list of unfinished apartments on 20.8.2018. For
this there is no appropriate answer by the side of
Respondent.
15. So here even though the Hon'ble Arbitrator
has been appointed as per the Order passed in CMP
No.54/2018, the Arbitration Tribunal has not been
constituted has not been constituted. In the reported
decision in (1992)2 Supreme Court Cases 479 in the
case between Sundram Finance Ltd., V/s NEPC India
Ltd., the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed
that the Court while exercising jurisdiction u/S 9
Court can pass a conditional order to put the
applicant to such terms as it may deem fit with a view
to see that effective steps are taken by the applicant
22 A.A.No.271/2018
for commencing the arbitral proceedings. Further
observed that what is apparent, however, is that the
Court is not debarred from dealing with an
application u/S 9 merely because no notice has been
issued u/S 21 of the 1996 Act. At para 3, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India observed that the material
words occurring in Sec.9 are "before or during the
arbitral proceedings". There is no reason s to why
Sec.9 of the 1996 Act should not be literally
construed. Meaning has to be given to the word
"before" occurring in the said section. The only
interpretation that can be given is that the Court can
pass interim orders before the commencement of
arbitral proceedings. Therefore reading the Section as
a whole it appears that the Court has jurisdiction to
entertain an application u/S 9 either before arbitral
proceedings or during arbitral proceedings or after the
making of the arbitral award, but before it is enforced
in accordance with Sec.36 of the Act.
16. As per Rule 18 of the Arbitration &
Conciliation Centre Rules. 2012,on appointment of
23 A.A.No.271/2018
Arbitral Tribunal, the proceedings shall be proceed as
per the procedural order fixing the timeline of
arbitration having due regard to Sec.29-A of the Act.
In this case also no doubt the Hon'ble Arbitrator has
been appointed in CMP No.54/2018, but the
Arbitrator has not yet started functioning and it
appears that the Respondent is trying to alienate or
sell the flats which have been constructed as super
structure flats to the prospective purchasers without
bringing it to the knowledge of the Applicants, which
is contrary to the Joint Development Agreement and
also Supplementary-cum-allocation Agreement
dt.16.5.2013. So here it causes loss financially to the
Applicants, if Respondent by completing the flats
which have been allotted to him sell the same,
without completing the flats which have been allotted
to the Applicants. Therefore, at this stage the
Applicants have made out a prima facie case to grant
interim relief as prayed for in the petition as well as in
I.A.No.1. So in order to avoid multiplicity of
proceedings, it is just and proper to maintain,
24 A.A.No.271/2018
preserve and protect the schedule properties as it is,
and to allow the application filed by the applicant u/S
9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act,1996. So here
the Learned Arbitrator has not yet entered into
Reference. Therefore the Applicants have approached
this Court and sought for interim relief and further
there is efficacious remedy available to the Applicants
to move u/S 17 of the Arbitration & Conciliation
Act,1996 before the Learned Arbitrator seeking
interim relief in respect of schedule properties,
because though the Hon'ble Arbitrator is appointed as
per order passed in CMP No.54/2018, not yet Arbitral
tribunal has been constituted with reference to Sec.
21 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act. Therefore in
order to avoid unforeseen event due to the activities of
the Respondent, it is just and proper to stop the
Respondent from creating any third party interest or
right over A, B and C schedule properties.
17. Further it is also apprehension of the
Applicants that taking advantage of the Order passed
by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in CMP
25 A.A.No.271/2018
No.54/2018, the Respondent may try to create third
party interest over A, B and C schedule properties
and may try to act contrary to Clause 9 and 17 of the
Joint Development Agreement dt.6.8.2010 and
Supplementary-cum-allocation Agreement
dt.16.5.2013. But in this case the Arbitral Tribunal
has not yet started the functioning. Therefore this
Court has got power u/S 9 of the Arbitration &
Conciliation(Amendment) Act,2015 to protect and
preserve the interest and rights of the Applicants
before constituting the Arbitral Tribunal u/S 21 of the
Arbitration & Conciliation Act.
18. Here the only contention of the Respondent
is that the Applicants have to pay interest free
refundable security deposit, but the Applicants have
not yet paid the refundable security deposit, though
the delay was caused by the side of Applicants. But
here first of all the Respondent has to answer whether
he has actually constructed all the flats which have
been allotted to the Applicants as per the
Supplementary-cum-allocation Agreement
26 A.A.No.271/2018
dt.16.5.2013. One of the Applicants has filed sworn
affidavit calling upon the Respondent to give list of
the flats which are fully constructed and list of the
flats which are not constructed and which are the
flats that are yet to be constructed. For this there is
no appropriate answer by the side of Respondent.
Hence the objection filed by the Respondent to the
main petition and also to I.A.No.1 is not at all tenable.
However the Respondent is having a right to get
efficacious remedy u/S 17 of the Arbitration &
Conciliation Act before the Hon'ble Arbitrator after
constitution of arbitral tribunal as per the order
passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in
CMP No.54/2018. Therefore I answered Point Nos.1 to
3 in the Affirmative.
POINT NO.4:
19. In view of aforesaid discussion and findings
on Point Nos.1 to 3, this Court proceeds to pass the
following Order:-
27 A.A.No.271/2018
ORDER
The Application filed by the petitioners against the
Respondent/Opponent u/S 9(II)(C)(D) & (E) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act,1996 is hereby allowed.
The interim relief granted by this Court dt.12.7.2018 is hereby made absolute and the interim relief granted by this Court is in force till constitution of Arbitration Tribunal, as per the Order of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in CMP No.54/2018.
Further It is directed to the Respondent restraining himself, his
agents, men or anybody on behalf of him, from alienating/encumbering/selling any apartment in the schedule property fallen to the share of Applicants as per the Supplementary-cum-allocation Agreement 28 A.A.No.271/2018 dt.16.5.2013 to any third parties, till Arbitral Tribunal constituted.
Accordingly the petition filed by the petitioners u/S 9(II)(C)(D) & (E) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act,1996 is hereby disposed of.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, typed by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 28th day of August 2018) (DEVANAND PUTTAPPA NAYAK) XXXVIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,Bangalore City.
Digitally signed by DEVANAND P NAYAK
DEVANAND DN: cn=DEVANAND P NAYAK,ou=GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,o=HIGH COURT OF P NAYAK KARNATAKA,st=Karnataka,c=IN
Date: 2018.08.29 15:08:42 IST