(BY SRI. SANJAY KRISHNA V, ADVOCATE) v. SRI. GOUTHAMDEV C ULLAL, ADVOCATE FOR R6)
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
The petition stands allowed
Provisions considered
Judgment
2. SRI PRABHAKAR S/O LATE SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO. 433/D, "RED TREE GRAND" G-1, 7TH B MAIN ROAD, 9TH CROSS NARAYANANAGAR, 3RD BLOCK DODDAKALLASANDRA BENGALURU - 560 052. (BY SRI. SANJAY KRISHNA V, ADVOCATE) …PETITIONERS K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AND:
MAANGALYA PARK AVENUE BUYERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION A WELFARE ASSOCIATION REGISTERED UNDER THE KARNATAKA SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1960 HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.15/2, DODDAKALLASANDRA VILLAGE VASANTHAPURA UTHARAHALLI HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH, BENGALURU-560 061 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
M/S MAANGALYA VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY REGISTERED - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:32840 WP No. 20453 of 2024 UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO. F1, 433/C, 7TH B MAIN 7TH B MAIN ROAD, 9TH CROSS NARAYANANAGAR, 3RD BLOCK DODDAKALLASANDRA BENGALURU - 560 052 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.
SRI AZGHAR AHMED DIRECTOR M/S MAANGALYA VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED, MAJOR BY AGE HAVING OFFICE AT F1, 433/C, 7TH B MAIN 7TH B MAIN ROAD, 9TH CROSS, NARAYANANAGAR, 3RD BLOCK, DODDAKALLASANDRA BENGALURU - 560 052. RESIDING AT NO.254 ZAIBAS MANSION, 4TH CROSS 7TH MAIN, DOLLARS LAYOUT J.P.NAGAR, 4TH PHASE BENGALURU - 560 078.
SRI SANJAY SURYANARAYANA DIRECTOR M/S MAANGALYA VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED, MAJOR BY AGE HAVING OFFICE AT NO.F1, 433/C 7TH B MAIN, 7TH B MAIN ROAD 9TH CROSS, NARAYANANAGAR 3RD BLOCK, DODDAKALLASANDRA BENGALURU - 560 052. RESIDING AT BRIGADE ATMOSPHERE VILLA NO.G20, SY. NO.12, STATE HIGHWAY 96 LAKSHMIPURA, DEVANAHALLI BENGALURU - 560 062.
SMT. B.S. SUSHEELA RAMAMURTHY W/O LATE B. RAMAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.433D REDTREE GRAND S1, 2ND FLOOR 7TH B MAIN, 9TH CROSS - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:32840 WP No. 20453 of 2024 NARAYANANAGAR 3RD BLOCK DODDAKALLASANDRA, BENGALURU - 560 062.
KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY 2ND FLOOR, SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK UNITY BUILDING, CSI COMPOUND 3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD BENGALURU - 560 027 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. (BY SRI. MITHUM G A, ADVOCATE FOR C/R IN CP.12196/24; SRI. GOUTHAMDEV C ULLAL, ADVOCATE FOR R6) …RESPONDENTS THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 02.07.2024 IN COMPLAINT NO. 1818/2023 VIDE ANNX-A PASSED BY THE R-6 REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY KARNATAKA AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER Respondent No. 1 filed a petition under Section 31 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA), seeking to revoke the RERA registration granted in favor of Respondent No. 2. The petition further sought a directive to compel Respondent No. 2 to hand over the project ‘Maanglya Park Avenue’ to the complainant Association, along with the necessary NOCs, master plan, and other documents required to complete the project. The petitioners, who are the daughter and son-in-law of the landowner (Respondent No. 5), are beneficiaries of a settlement deed executed among family members, as evidenced by Annexure J, which granted them ownership of certain apartments. - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:32840 WP No. 20453 of 2024 Pursuant to the settlement deed, the petitioners entered into registered agreements to sell some of these apartments to members of Respondent No. 1 - Association.
2. The respondents no.1 filed an application to implead the petitioners, who, as stated, are the daughter and son-in-law of the landowner. The respondents contended that the petitioners are beneficiaries under the family settlement deed, and following the deed, they executed registered agreements with some members of the Association for the sale of certain apartments in the project.
3. The petitioners assert that they filed objections to this application. However, the Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (hereinafter referred to as ‘RERA’) passed an order restraining the petitioners from conveying the apartments. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioners have filed the present petition.
4. Heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
Operative part
5. It is admitted that the objections filed by the petitioners to the impleadment application were not considered. The impugned order passed by Respondent No. 6 is not a speaking order, it overruled the objections filed by the petitioners without assigning any reasons for restraining them from alienating the apartments. Consequently, the impugned order is in violation of the principles of natural justice and is not legally sustainable. Accordingly, I pass the following: - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:32840 WP No. 20453 of 2024 i) The petition stands allowed. ORDER ii) The impugned order dated 2.7.2024 passed Complaint No.1818/2023 by the respondent No.6 vide Annexure-A is hereby quashed. iii) The respondent No.6 is hereby directed to reconsider the objections filed by the petitioners to the application filed by the respondent No.1 for not alienating the apartments in the project in question, and pass appropriate order afresh in accordance with law after hearing the petitioners as well as the respondent No.1 herein. iv) All the contentions of the parties are kept open. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE BKM
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The petition stands allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Registration Act, 1908; Companies Act, 2013; Constitution of India — art. 227; Development Act, 2016.
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.