COUNTRY CLUB HOSPITALITY & HOLDINGS LTD., A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
The Writ Petitions are allowed in part
Provisions considered
Judgment
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 3/28/54/1, BRINDAVAN GARDENS, GUNTUR – 522 006. HAVING ITS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS AT NO.61, SHRI VIJAYARAJA ESTATE, KAVYA G Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:39674 WP No. 45881 of 2019 …PETITIONERS THANISANDRA MAIN ROAD, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BANGALORE – 560 064. REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MR. VAJRAMPAVAN KUMAR. (BY SRI. NARENDRA H N., ADVOCATE) AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIDHAN SOUDHA, BANGALORE – 560 001. REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
THE CHAIRMAN, BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD, 2ND FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN, KEMPEGOWDA ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 009.
THE CHIEF ENGINEER (M), BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD, 2ND FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN, KEMPEGOWDA ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 009. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL. S.P.P., FOR R1; SRI. MONESH KUMAR K.B., ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:39674 WP No. 45881 of 2019 CIRCULAR DATED 3.4.2017 ISSUED BY THE R-3 [ANNEXURE - E]; QUASH THE IMPUGNED DEMAND NOTICE DATED 8.7.2019 ISSUED BY THE R-3 TO THE PETITIONERS [ANENXURE-D] AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri. Narendra H.N., learned counsel for the petitioner/s, Sri. Jagadeesha B.N., learned Additional SPP for respondent No.1 and Sri. K.b. Monesh Kumar, learned counsel for respondents No.2 & 3.
Operative part
2. The charges levied against the petitioner/s, in the case at hand, are either few or all of these charges viz., Beneficiary Capital Contribution Charges, Greater Bangalore Water Sewerage Project charges, Advance Probable Pro Rata Charges and Treated Water Charges for Construction. These very charges were considered by this Court in W.P.No.20016 of 2021 c/w W.P.No.10020 of 2020, disposed on 05-04-2024, wherein this Court has - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:39674 WP No. 45881 of 2019 upheld the Advance Probable Pro Rata Charges and Treated Water Charges for Construction and has quashed Beneficiary Capital Contribution Charges and Greater Bangalore Water Sewerage Project charges, by the following order:
35. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER (i) (ii) The Writ Petitions are allowed in part. The demand of Advance Probable Pro Rata Charges and Treated Water Charges for Construction are upheld. (iii) The demand of Beneficiary Capital Contribution Charges and Greater Bangalore Water Sewerage project charges are held to be illegal. (iv) The obliteration as found in clause (iii) supra will not come in the way of the State or the Board to bring in the charges that are held to be illegal under the provisions of the Act or the Rules, by making suitable amendments to the Act, Rules or the Regulations. amounts demanded (iv) Petitioners in these petitions who have deposited Beneficiary Capital Contribution Charges and Greater Bangalore Water Sewerage project charges are entitled to refund of the same, for which purpose the petitioners shall submit a representation. The same shall merit consideration within 12 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:39674 WP No. 45881 of 2019 (v) In cases where in the event the petitioners have deposited the amount before this Court, as a condition precedent for grant of the interim order, the Registry shall refund those amounts to the petitioners, in case of any deposit of the kind.
3. In the light of the issues answered by this Court supra standing covered to the case at hand on all its fours, the writ petition stands disposed on the very same findings and observations. Ordered accordingly. As a consequence, pending I.A.s, if any, stand disposed. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE BVK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 468
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The Writ Petitions are allowed in part
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Companies Act, 2013; Constitution of India — art. 226.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.