IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO. 19989/2019 (GM-CPC) C/W WRIT PETITION NOS. 19986/2019, 19987/2019, 19988/2019, 19862/2019 (GM-CPC) IN W.P. NO. 19989/2019:
BETWEEN:
M/S ANAND TRANSPORT PVT LTD A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956, HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT MGM-CENTRE, NO.1, 9TH STREET, DR. RADHAKRISHNAN SALAI, MYLAPORE, CHENNAI-600004 REPRESENTED BY ITS SRI. K VASUDEVAN, GENERAL MANAGER-LEGAL & CO-ORDINATION.
… PETITIONER (BY SRI. S V BHAT, FOR] SRI. YASHODHAR HEGDE, ADVOCATES) AND:
1. M/S KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LTD A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.82, SHAKTHI BHAVAN, 6TH FLOOR, RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE-560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR 2. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (FUELS) M/S KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LTD., NO.82, SHAKTHI BHAVAN, 3RD FLOOR, RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE-560001 3. THE MANAGER STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD, CHENNAI MAIN BRANCH, 2ND LINE BEACH ROAD, CHENNAI-600001 … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. AJAY J NANDALIKE, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & 2; SRI. B N TULSI KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE LXXXII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY (CCH-83) TO DISPOSE OF THE SUIT IN O.S.NO.10244/2015 WITHIN TWO MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE PETITION AND DIRECT THE R-1 AND 2 TO PAY THE COSTS OF THE ABOVE W.P.
IN W.P. NO. 19986/2019:
BETWEEN:
M/S ANAND TRANSPORT PVT LTD A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956, HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT MGM-CENTRE, NO.1, 9TH STREET, DR. RADHAKRISHNAN SALAI, MYLAPORE, CHENNAI-600004 REPRESENTED BY ITS SRI K VASUDEVAN, GENERAL MANAGER-FOR LEGAL & CO-ORDINATION.
...PETITIONER (BY SRI. S V BHAT, FOR] SRI. YASHODHAR HEGDE, ADVOCATES) AND:
1. M/S KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LTD A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.82, SHAKTHI BHAVAN, 6TH FLOOR, RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE-560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR 2. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (FUELS) M/S KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LTD., NO.82, SHAKTHI BHAVAN, 3RD FLOOR, RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE-560001 3. THE MANAGER AXIS BANK LIMITED, GROUND FLOOR, KARIUMUTHAI NILAYAMA, NO.182, ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI – 600 001.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. AJAY J NANDALIKE, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & 2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE LXXXII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY (CCH-83) TO DISPOSE OF THE SUIT IN O.S.NO.2798/2016 WITHIN TWO MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE PETITION AND DIRECT THE R-1 AND 2 TO PAY THE COSTS OF THE ABOVE W.P.
IN W.P. NO. 19987/2019:
M/S ANAND TRANSPORT PVT LTD A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956, HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT MGM-CENTRE, NO.1, 9TH STREET, DR. RADHAKRISHNAN SALAI, MYLAPORE, CHENNAI-600004 REPRESENTED BY ITS SRI K VASUDEVAN, GENERAL MANAGER-FOR LEGAL & CO-ORDINATION.
...PETITIONER (BY SRI. S V BHAT, FOR] SRI. YASHODHAR HEGDE, ADVOCATES) AND:
1. M/S KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LTD A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.82, SHAKTHI BHAVAN, 6TH FLOOR, RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE-560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR 2. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (FUELS) M/S KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LTD., NO.82, SHAKTHI BHAVAN, 3RD FLOOR, RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE-560001 3. THE MANAGER STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD, CHENNAI MAIN BRANCH, 2ND LINE BEACH ROAD, CHENNAI-600001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. AJAY J NANDALIKE, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. B N TULSI KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE LXXXII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY (CCH-83) TO DISPOSE OF THE SUIT IN O.S.NO.5654/2016 WITHIN TWO MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE PETITION AND DIRECT THE R-1 AND 2 TO PAY THE COSTS OF THE ABOVE W.P.
IN W.P. NO. 19988/2019:
BETWEEN:
M/S ANAND TRANSPORT PVT LTD A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956, HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT MGM-CENTRE, NO.1, 9TH STREET,DR. RADHAKRISHNAN SALAI, MYLAPORE, CHENNAI-600004 REPRESENTED BY ITS SRI K VASUDEVAN, GENERAL MANAGER- LEGAL & CO-ORDINATION.
...PETITIONER (BY SRI. S V BHAT, FOR] SRI. YASHODHAR HEGDE, ADVOCATES) AND:
1. M/S KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LTD A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.82, SHAKTHI BHAVAN, 6TH FLOOR,RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE-01 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR 2. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (FUELS) M/S KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LTD., NO.82, SHAKTHI BHAVAN, 3RD FLOOR, RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE-01 3. THE MANAGER STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD, CHENNAI MAIN BRANCH, 2ND LINE, BEACH ROAD, CHENNAI-600001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. AJAY J NANDALIKE, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & 2; SRI. B N TULSI KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE LXXXII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY (CCH-83) TO DISPOSE OF THE SUIT IN O.S.NO.5655/2016 WITHIN TWO MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE PETITION AND DIRECT THE R-1 AND 2 TO PAY THE COSTS OF THE ABOVE W.P.
IN W.P. NO. 19862/2019:
BETWEEN M/S ANAND TRANSPORT PVT LTD A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT MGM CENTRE, NO 1, 9TH STREET, DR RADHAKRISHNAN SALAI MYLAPORE CHENNAI - 60004 REPRESENTED BY ITS SRI K VASUDEVAN, GENERAL MANAGER-FOR LEGAL & CO-ORDINATION.
...PETITIONER (BY SRI. S V BHAT, FOR] SRI. YASHODHAR HEGDE, ADVOCATES) AND:
1. M/S KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LTD A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO 82, SHAKTHI BAHVAN, 6TH FLOOR, RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE - 560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR 2. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (FUELS) M/S KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LTD NO 82, SHAKTHI BAHVAN, 3RD FLOOR, RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE - 560001 3. THE MANAGER STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD CHENNAI MAIN BRANCH 2ND LINE BEACH ROAD, CHENNAI - 600001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. AJAY J NANDALIKE, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & 2; SRI. B N TULSI KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE LXXXII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY (CCH-83) TO DISPOSE OF THE SUIT IN O.S.NO.10243/2015 WITHIN TWO MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE PETITION AND DIRECT THE R-1 AND 2 TO PAY THE COSTS OF THE ABOVE W.P.
THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDER, THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER In all these writ petitions, petitioner being the plaintiff in the subject five suits involving commercial disputes, the prayer was for a Writ of Mandamus for directing the learned 82nd Addl. City Civil Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-83) to try and dispose off the said suits within a period of two months. After service of notice the respondent nos. 1 & 2 have entered appearance through their counsel and contest the writ petitions, notice to the other respondent having been dispensed with suo moto.
2. Subsequently petitioner has made the applications for introducing additional prayer for quashment of the orders dated 08.01.2018, whereby the learned trial Judge having allowed the contesting respondents’ applications unopposed all filed u/s.151 of CPC, 1908, has taken on record the Written Statements that were filed, belatedly, of course on payment of costs.
3. Although these cases were posted for hearing interlocutory applications seeking leave to amend the writ petitions as mentioned above, the same were taken up for final disposal on merits after hearing on the said applications as well. The matter was argued by both the sides at length.
4. Facts in brief:
(a) petitioner has filed the subject five suits seeking a money decree, in the year 2015 after the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 came into force; the contesting respondents entered appearance through their panel counsel in December 2015; at a later point of time the plaint was amended too; after commercial courts came to be established in Bengaluru city, all these suits came to be transferred to the aforesaid special court, in February 2018;
(b) in all these suits there was delay in filing the Written Statements and therefore individual applications were moved by the contesting respondents seeking leave to file the Written Statements after condoning delay; the petitioner signified his ‘No objection’ for allowing the same on costs and accordingly the learned trial Judge by the impugned orders having favoured the said applications received the Written Statements; all this was before the suits were transferred to the commercial court u/s.15(2) of the Act;
(c) in some of these suits, the petitioner had invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court earlier too which he withdrew and still this Court had directed expeditious disposal of the suits in question; issues have been framed inter alia on the basis of the pleadings of the parties and some issues have been modified after petitioner’s pleadings were amended; trial of the suits also has begun by examining PW-1 whose cross examination of PW-1 is half way through; and, (d) when this was the position, the petitioner has filed these writ petitions on 25/26.04.2019 when the summer vacation was imminent, with a specific prayer for issuance of writ of mandamus for disposal of the subject suits within two months; in the second half of September 2019 he moved the applications for amendment of writ petitions seeking to introduce additional prayer for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari for quashing the orders dated 08.01.2018 whereby the Written Statements filed belatedly were taken on record by allowing respondents applications on payment of costs.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court declines to grant indulgence in the matter because:
(i) the subject suits are for recovery of money huge in sums from the contesting respondents which are a public sector undertaking of the Government of Karnataka; after filing of the suits, petitioner has amended the plaints with the leave of the court; the contesting respondents application for leave to file the Written Statements came to be allowed since petitioners counsel in the Court below had submitted that the “applications be allowed on costs”; accordingly they were allowed and petitioner admittedly received the costs too; thus a person who takes the benefit of the impugned order cannot later turn around and lay a challenge thereto; the case of the petitioner is still worse inasmuch as it is he who had prompted the learned trial Judge to allow the subject applications on costs, and accepted the costs without any demur; an argument to the contrary is unconscionable which the Writ Court cannot countenance;
(ii) after the Written Statements were filed, issues have been framed and later some issues have been modified too; trial having begun, the PW-1 having been examined in chief now has been cross examined half way through; it is only more than a year and a half, the petitioner has now sought for quashing of the impugned orders dated 08.01.2018 as an after thought whereby the contesting respondents application having been allowed, their Written Statements were taken on record after paying the costs; thus, petitioner has acquiesced not only in the regularity and legality of the impugned order but also further progress of the suit structured thereon;
(iii) petitioner’s contention that under the proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC, 1908, after lapse of 120 days the respondent-defendants have got their right to file the Written Statements forfeited and therefore despite the petitioner signifying ‘No objection’ and he accepting the costs, the trial Court ought not to have received the Written Statements filed belatedly, again is unconscionable, to say the least; it is the petitioner who too is responsible for the passing of the impugned orders whereby the Written Statements came to be taken on record; the contention that regardless of petitioner’s consent, the embargo enacted under the law against receiving the belatedly filed Written Statements is invokable since there can be no estoppel against law, appears to be too farfetched an argument; such a contention is too feeble for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction vested in this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India where conduct of the invoker assumes significance; the conduct of the petitioner does not merit grant of relief by the Writ Court; and, (iv) petitioner’s reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of M/S. SCG CONTRACTS INDIA PVT. LTD., vs. K.S.CHAMANKAR INFRASTRUCTURE PVT.LTD., 2019 SAR (CIVIL) 421 SC does not much come to hisassistance since the fact matrix of these writ petitions do not fit into that of the said decision, wherein the distinguishing factors such as prompting the court below to accept the Written Statement. Accepting the cost without any demur and giving consent for receiving the Written Statement that were filed belatedly, were conspicuously absent there.
In the above circumstances, these writ petitions for quashing the impugned orders fail; however, the same are favoured only to the extent of directing expeditious disposal of the subject suits and accordingly a direction issues to the learned trial Judge.
All other contentions of the parties are kept open. No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE Snb/