M/S USA ENTERPRISES, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM, HAVING ITS PLACE OF BUSINESS v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case at a glance
- Bench
- B M SHYAM PRASAD
- Neutral citation
- 2026:KHC:41826
Outcome
Disposed of
exceptions, the petition stands disposed of
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India arts. 226, 227
- Greater Bengaluru Authority Act, 2024 s. 243
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. SMT. K. BHARATHI, W/O SRI L.K. SHIVANANDA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT NO.405, 11TH CROSS, 14TH MAIN, 2ND PHASE, J.P. NAGAR, BENGALURU 560078. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H.K. KENCHE GOWDA, AGA FOR R1; SRI. PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4) THIS WP IS FILED…
Judgment
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 24417 OF 2026 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: M/S USA ENTERPRISES, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM, HAVING ITS PLACE OF BUSINESS IN THE NAME AND STYLE OF KRISHNAM UDUPI HOTEL AT SITE NO.1, BBMP KHATHA NO.1, DODDAKALLASANDRA 1ST STAGE, KONANAKUNTE, KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU - 560062, 1 2 REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS SRI A SHANKAR KUNDAR S/O AMANNA, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, R/O.NO.348, SRINIDHI, 5TH MAIN, 2ND CROSS, NGEF LAYOUT, SADANANDA NAGAR, BANGALORE 560 038 SRI KUNDAR SATHYANARAYANA K, S/O.LATE PANJU, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/O. NO.96, 5TH MAIN ROAD KEMBATHAHALLI ROAD, SHAMANNA LAYOUT, Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HC-KAR - 2 - NC: 2026:KHC:41826 WP No. 24417 of 2026 CNR: KAHC010539932026 GOTTIGERE BENGALURU 560 083
3. SRI. K. UDAY KUMAR S/O SRI. M. KARIYA NAYAK AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/O NO.1-21/4, 11TH CROSS, 34TH MAIN, J.P. NAGAR, 1ST PHASE, BANGALORE - 560078. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. VIGNESHWAR S SHASTRI, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. AISHWARYA HEGDE M.V., ADVOCATE) AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, M.S. BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU 560001, REP.ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
GREATER BENGALURU AUTHORITY, HUDSON CIRCLE, N.R. SQUARE, BENGALURU 560002, REP.BY ITS CHIEF COMMISSIONER.
BENGALURU SOUTH CITY CORPORATION, PALIKE OFFICE, 9TH MAIN, JAYANAGAR 9TH BLOCK, BENGALURU - 560069. REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
THE ZONAL COMMISSIONER, ZONE-1, BENGALURU SOUTH HC-KAR - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:41826 WP No. 24417 of 2026 CNR: KAHC010539932026 CITY CORPORATION, COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, 9TH CROSS ROAD, 9TH MAIN, 2ND BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560011.
Operative part
SMT. K. BHARATHI, W/O SRI L.K. SHIVANANDA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT NO.405, 11TH CROSS, 14TH MAIN, 2ND PHASE, J.P. NAGAR, BENGALURU 560078. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H.K. KENCHE GOWDA, AGA FOR R1; SRI. PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO- QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 16.03.2026 BEARING NO. SA KA AA/U.U.VI/C.O/(2)(38)/2025-26 PASSED BY R4 UNDER SECTION 243(3) (e) AND 244 (1) OF THE GRATER BENGALURU GOVERNANCE ACT, 2024 PRODUCED AS ANNX-G. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: HC-KAR - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:41826 WP No. 24417 of 2026 CNR: KAHC010539932026 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER The petitioner's grievance is with the conclusion of the proceedings under Section 243 of the Greater Bengaluru Authority Act, 2024 [for short, 'the GBG Act']. Mr. Vighneshwar S Shastri, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, submits that this Court intervene because the proceedings are culminated without notice to the petitioner. It would suffice for this Court to observe at this stage that the petitioner asserts leasehold rights under the Kathedhar in whose name the proceedings are culminated and that the petitioner, even if it could allege that there is violation of the principles of natural justice, must avail statutory remedy under Section 250 of the GBG Act. HC-KAR - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC:41826 WP No. 24417 of 2026 CNR: KAHC010539932026 With liberty in this regard but subject to all just exceptions, the petition stands disposed of. SD/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE RB
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: exceptions, the petition stands disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — arts. 226, 227; Greater Bengaluru Authority Act, 2024 — s. 243.
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.