IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT APPEAL NOS.4316-4318/2016 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN:
MITTAL TOWERS COMMERCIAL COMPLEX OWNERS ASSOCIATION ®, MITTAL TOWER "A" WING BASEMENT, NO.6, M.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT MR. SURESH MITTAL ... APPELLANT (BY SHRI CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR M/S. HOLLA & HOLLA) AND:
1. MITTAL TOWERS APARTMENT OWNERS ASSOCIATION ®, NO.6, M.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.
REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT, MR. VASANTH RAO U.A.
2. SRI SANJAI JESWANI S/O MULCHAND, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/A 304-E WING, MITTAL TOWERS, NO.6, M.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.
3. SRI RAVINDRA RAO S/O LATE A.BHOJA RAO, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, MITTAL TOWERS, NO.6, M.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.
4. BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE N.R. SQUARE BENGALURU - 560 002 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER 5. JOINT COMMISSIONER (EAST) BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE MAYOHALL, RESIDENCY ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001 6. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER (EAST) BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE MAYOHALL, RESIDENCY ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001 7. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER EAST SUB-DIVISION BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE MAYOHALL, RESIDENCY ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI SUBRAMANYA R., ADVOCATE FOR R1-R3 & SHRI K.N. PUTTEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R4-R7) ---
THESE WRIT APPEALS ARE FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 08.09.2016 PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NOS. 47338-340/16 (LB-BMP) AND DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION AS DEVOID OF MERITS AND GRANT SUCH OTHER & FURTHER RELIEFS AND ETC.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT The joint memo signed by the appellant and the first to third respondents and also by their respective learned counsel is placed on record.
2. The learned counsel for both the appellant and the first to third respondents pray for disposing of the appeals in terms of what is stated in the memo.
3. While accepting the prayer made by the appellant and the first to third respondents, we make it clear that as the fourth to seventh respondents are not parties to the settlement, the issues whether the construction carried out by the appellants is lawful or not and whether the appellants have made statutory compliance or not, are expressly kept open. The powers of the fourth to seventh respondents with that regard will remain unaffected.
Subject to the above clarification, the appeals are disposed of in terms of joint memo filed by the appellant and the first to third respondents.
Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE SN