M/S Essvee Watch Cases Pvt Ltd vs Karnataka State Small Industries ... on 21 July, 2009

[Cites 0, Cited by 6]

Karnataka High Court

M/S Essvee Watch Cases Pvt Ltd vs Karnataka State Small Industries ... on 21 July, 2009

Bench: Anand Byrareddy

IN THE HIGH COURT (BF   _

BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE. 213: QAY £3? '3U{§'1?; 2309 %

BEFQ i§E: %  
THE HON'BLEl MR:f1';I1JSTI§f;Ev;9ii;{§;5§x'JD BYRAREDm*
WRIT PETITION Ne.%33(:-.53k 6:3F1'2;f§{$i.'({§'M~KSSIDC)
    

A Co1VnpanyT'i::Lc;)rp§§£ai£;d' «under .
indiati ~.C:'mi pa.1ii'e.%  a:§c.iA_?ii1Vi1i g
its uffuztz ;V1£'Nu.6V._TuL'-.i:~:iv 'A.$hi:"wad
Colony, 4g'4-Main, L" tZ';_ti3ss{

Huljanmvu Ruai " V'

   .....

R§prcsz%snhy iis Direcier, ' '}'..{[;f's'. Kfivale.


.. PETITZONER

 M'.sV.Jayaram, Senior Cuunsci fur

V  xlaypee. Asseciates )

%     Kamamka Stab: Smaii Industries,

Deveiopment Eiorporatiozx,
Rajajinagar,
Bangalorcﬁé.
Rcprcsenied by its
Managing I3ir&ctQr_

2. Mz's.H¢aiTrsa1mrs:,
Shaé N0.B«~25é,

3



 

Industriai Estate,
Psenya 11 Stage,
Bangalure-58.

(By Sri. P-S.Man_iunalh, Adv1;«Ca§.r_;: ft3rV'Rz;$:Vf::!3nd»:*Ii'vEM?.l; 3 Sri.T.Seshagiri Rae, Advocate-ff):,Resp0nd<::;t?R.)":.» e=s:«1gf=a_ * __ 2 This 'Wri1PcLiiiLv)2i'--iV.:§fi1éd i;;i1dL4f«VAti'iic.l;:s 226 and 227 uf, the Constitution of Ind§g," pztiyizgg .di:*e:§;$_. the respondent to cxacuitz ihc: saigdn-tgd ir§lE:1v(Jizg'q1"i1§$Vpci§£§m:er in rcspcd of the Schedule Pr0{j§eIt}!.V-.'§nd'3--.pu%: the '1':3aetitio:3t::r~*in possessien of the Schcdzsic ' ﬁ3i""" iiicaring [his day, the Court made _f0lI{)v:§¥.«g%:"~.% * _ -. __ ' % ' :_''~-.,,._ f)RDER ; ' 'V Heafi} E-}t;:VC{§ux¥s;cl "far (ht: petitioner. . *i,:§ the uf the peslitiuzmr that ii. is 2:. mmgany lhc C-umpanies Aci, 1956 and the rc§p-unciciliv "fmrein had cunsirucied an indusiriai shed and was ':¢i§::g§£c(Vi "£c3 {hrs pc[iiiune:"--C{:»mpany repmscnltzd by its erstwhile ';;é§'0pria£ur.

Thai 02} an application magic by the pviiiiuncr urn 6.12.1935, for rwcunsiituiinn xgihc Finn, the first msgxvndsxnl by its letter dated 19.5.1986, had acuurdad ssmulior1__._l_°<)r {he change of constitution and accurdingiy, the pmpric£Qfs§ipj:':--v;:s converted into a Private: Limited Cum an in Ede' nameL-£3i'T.L"hcM"'» P . . .

tiéiuncr herein. The liiiuntsr ha;iW(:iirx1énaudi:1_ '9:s:;t:s:e;ié)n tzf pa .§ . . 1% % the schedule properly. The pclitiozzier ivag in' of instalments due: under the ﬁtﬁﬁuncr and the rcspundenl shed conccrmcd.

The pciiliuncr wag respondent that the penal in§5cifc§:s'E;;1iTirx:1;,,~:,;:::;:*,(1igaigo§§4!s§§i{&{ir1g"paymml was waived and Ii:-{that 'amid be waived if the petitioner makes VViia3ai'..V;§'a§incn£ of ether outstanding amounts < JuI:§5"i'9--93;' Accardingly, the titioner is said to zmlire anmuni of Rs-37,469;'-- of which inwards arrears in imstaimcnis and Rs.l3,250:'- nwas tbwétnis pcnai interest after the waiver: beneﬁt extended in of 1112: order dated 28.4.1993. There was :1 ﬁxrthcsr " '-'i;it3II1aI}d of Rs.5,(){}0f-- of which Rs.4,i5€)/- was saiti it; be towards hypoihmaﬁon agreement and ancslimr Rs.85{}:'- tmvards lhc cxccss charges which was prumpiiy remitted by the § petitioner- Even after all these payments, the pelii.i<3n¢:r's eiferi to obiain possession of {he industrial shed was in vain.

3. It is the petiiiunefs case that ad? dues we;:«'.e 29.4.1993 19 {he respondent. I.t;:spi.i.eA ihe respundent has taken possession ef'.Lhe._f3reniises«~and process, several machinery, leafs,» ducmznen&s,,f'_;sl{3s:i{#in--[r*sde V' and other material of the..peiiL€'£5iie1"vs.:£§nVVV'»£he prerfiisesvvv were as:

handed over $0 the peIilioner- been alluited its a thirds-svgaafvijfd' " 9 had nulice of the sznne and it is by the iilegaf £he first respondent has re---

possessed the inspile :31' the peliiiuner having made aii under an agreement with the ﬁrsi respondeni.

had issued 3 fags} notice deﬁed V --V which was nut replied is; by the respondent. The ;x)eli'£§;3ne'r eiaims {E131 it is eniiiied £9 re-pnssessitm mf ihe Aﬁlrefseriy and the respondent has [9 make guns! the hszge Iusses ihai {he petitiuner has suﬁereai not uni}: by ihe respondent having faker: over its immmfeabie pmperiies ai {he iime ef re- pussessiun «.1? the indusﬁial shed, it is the depraveiicm 95 the pmperly wiﬁeh disabled the peiiﬁurrer Eu carry my iis business «Z which has added in its fosscs. The first re5pundf;:n l - buund lu execute a deed of conveyance in as the pcliiiuner has made all payII_1t:3:r.ts_ 'due; Wli VV ' that the pclitiuner sucks to subs1axi£iat£§_A_AasT V1336 payments manic under various hgiazis inuiudingwaiézﬁméieélriciﬁt"

charges and ether maintenance ={;{i:ai*"gge:s in extmiso in this petition.

Senior 3zr'=1:L3.««}:ﬂ¢: ic;:;t¥,t:i=_' appearing for the Counsel Submit that (here: is nu jus1i{'1;;:a;:£i<;n dcmying that the peliliuncr has dufy uunliiiiﬁﬁ». L)? the agrecmcnl and {hat the has Bécn....iﬂegaIIy dispusscsamd from the industrial 'V is " 4,. first rtaspundszznt whu has cnivred appearance Ehruughﬁounsci has ﬂied sialemcnt uf (Jbjcciions in deny thai {i':--t;: geéztiiiuzxtsr had uompliud wiih the {aims of [ha agrwmeni. It is stated in {Int Staicmcni uf Objcciiuns thai the petitioner had Eztiied to make: a payment uf Rs.l,63§Cf9€ls'~-- in mspect of which a Rev-mac Recvvery Ccrtiﬁcuicz: was issued by the: Depzﬁy Qzmniiaxioner audgkgxal ii is Habit: to be zvecznrercd as «4 demonstrated from the record maintained by thg first ruspondent itsctf.

6. In any event, on 21 close examination ufﬂzc 'f!.'::¢{}X:{i;; tit is clear that the axnouzai, even aL;£3tifdi'1:gA_ Lu tE:¢tv"f#:spu1§dch'L which was puyabir: by 131:: pt:tiT1ionc:r:4t\::--§S«;ts on cuntcniiun that there was 3 contingjiizg cuﬁttsfionticﬁgsc between tbs pctitiuncr and the: ;__r§:'*apu1f{dc1:t "-c:.1}d 'i.'1_at it was a running, account in which the pc_tit§~t_1ntir §va'S'~vduééj_--.t§}cse munics and thtrrctistreﬁi. %za€r§f;'g- t)é¢:i"'i?;--atis in 3998, was tenable and since: this: .;3cVt§t'it1tt§5§*.tV tu mate: the payrncntg the rcsputgdcnttttimls ctltiitéii Lifiktcr the temnx uf the agrcenntsnt to ram- tﬁtf tiiiiiutstziai shed is not irzmcabic to any iugat :pr_:§$.}i:;i:{5:z_,t. " which the respondent amid have takczx ;3m:$es§£'0n the premises. Firstly, if tilt: pciitiumsr had urxdtzr the tcrnm us? the agreement and if there was :1 '1_t:3x'*ts2;ii:h cummiitcd irmufar as the payments sf manics were t '' '''''c0net:mcd, this rcctivary of mmncy ought {:3 have tower: wﬁhin the period {sf Eimiiatiim. Ii is not (fit: pisa cu'? the respondtini that it {:5 g<_wt;mt;<_3. by am §.?..F€Wt?:%t0I§ «.237 iaw whiazh wéuauki. t3rI_>viz.it_: "' I"

otherwise. Th3 rcsgmndcni set: ' g to mauve: munies at la:

mcuvsr possession of the premises, which wa:sg the uccupaliun of the petitioner, ought to be in" acc;)r<ia:;;e;;§ Viwiélh law' There is nothing piaccd on recurd to ..

respondent no.1 was in a pusitiun in: ci£§1c(j1rcca:)vcrV'mQ'm:c:s *:r«e:;;il beyond the period 017 iimikiiiug under' ihc law of." Limiiaiion or as regards the cir({u:ns'£ancc {'f1ai_lhAc,'.§ indushia} shed which was in the ;§osse:A:z$§g;xi»<,i'f l};e§:%'pg§ii$iuner cuuid be r::--

ptmscssud .a:l h2£_lcd;_ te..> :1_"§.hixd=g§2_:ri}r'wiiizuui recuursc in a process £'§.{:t;t.3i°zi_ii:Vg§'3§, she dispniz: as rt-sgards the aznuaiivis the pcléiiuzztsr is duubiful and even if ihegamvc étgtiiai E3e:E;:~;£abIished in a civii suit, Lht: same is ~ . '_ agpézmgﬁy byﬁnzilaliun.

uI}ier quesiiun that would rczcguirst L:0ns§dcraiion is .é2e!!»1'é§{«}1er.A.[h§:'i._I§:ir:~:l rsspcmdcnl wags _§u:;léJ3c(i€ ﬁn mwpusscssing the indusixiai shed without rccuursc in a pmcess icnuwn as law. Sigivgﬁ {he respondcni has rcwpusscswd ihe premises an the: _ ﬁrengih uf the It:-arse: dead cxaculcd 'in favour cf {he pciitiuncr, it ezannei be said that the saint: is iawfai or cmzid be jusiiﬁcd in the eireumslaxzces. The peléiionczr wuuld lhurcfurc sum:-tztzﬁ in ttsiablishing ihai {hare has Eactzn %unia:v{ui &is--«pu3:scssinn an 3 V96 demand for payment uf muney which was c1:::;u"l),I ﬁmilaliun.

Huwcvcr, the question uf dénneigc:-;_ and: :=:;§":a};v;z§sa[i:ji1 payabic la ihc: pcliiiuncr is a »mattcr4'1h;:£i*cannui. by rcczmrst: it} ihcse prucccdingg' on Vféesl that this c-uuri would ﬁnd' ju3liI;1AAa:2¥AfLio21 in {he rc:~:pundI::n£ having shed. in the swat I993 in respect of xvhichii; $93 and Vthcrt:aﬁcr,T ihe po:~.:scSsiu1-1'uf lVhe':"i-x;(iusi'tigii"'--shed was taken in Lhz: year 1998. This dmgygeg mg gppagem illegality an am pm'! 0:" {he T}i'e'vp¢.:3§iiuncr seeking £3 rccuv-er darnages on at:§:i;:;Iii.»_«Gf wuuld be euiside {he purviczw mf ﬁaezse pi'9(:cedVings§.V. 'jlmgufar as the dis-possczssiun is concerned, the §:aIne"i:;}3iaian£ly illczgai and line: mspumicni wuuid be abligcd £23 " fcaeiéiivsr pusscssiun cf the indusiriai shad' fimvevtzz; = Ecspundcni no.2 having been past in pussessimn uf {he imiuslriai zihmi by the ﬁrsi rcaspundeni ii wuuid pﬁaeze that {}x§:*d-gnarl}; at a snzéuus di:-sadvaniage if he has been a bonamﬁdc 31391163 for vaiac. To avoid injustice ﬁtting uumpnunded in rcspcct £31' an 5 irmoccni. £hird~--pa2'£y, the first rcspundcni shaﬁ put the petitioner in pusscssiun of an aitcxnativc industrial shad, of __:,-ﬁmiiar ciimensiun and having similar faciiititss, as {he pt:li§'Ll_',{}'¥v!.{*.:'J'§"._.\.L'«.»'.';'§,'.~2 aﬁuiicd earlier. The rcsponcicnl shall comply wit'-1 when a period gr cighi weeks, if mrem1;c;e« fr§3fti :'i31¢:daite 'of this order.

I i'I:'.):'

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court