IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION No.45257/2014(GM-KSSIDC) BETWEEN:
M/S PEERLESS ENGINEERING PRODUCTS (P) LTD., REGISTRED OFFICE AT NO. 26, 12TH MAIN,3RD BLOCK JAYANAGARA EAST, BANGALORE 560011. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI. S. DORAIRAJU ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. M. THIMMARAYA SWAMY, ADV.) AND 1. MANAGING DIRECTOR KARNATAKA STATE SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, RAJAJINAGARA BANGALORE-560010.
2. GENERAL MANAGER (I E S) KARNATAKA STATE SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, RAJAJINAGARA, BANGALORE-560010.
3. SRI HARIDAS POTTATH S/O KUMAR POTTATH AGED 55 YEARS AND RESIDING AT ‘SREE HARI’ NO.56, 7TH MAIN SHANKARNAGAR BANGALORE-560096.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PUTHIGE R. RAMESH, ADV. FOR R1 & R2, SRI. K.V. SATISH, ADV. FOR R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO EXECUTE THE ABSOLUTE SALE DEED IN RESPECT OF SHED NO.B-174, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, PEENYA II STAGE, BANGALORE-560058, AT THE COST OF THE PETITIONER & ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R In this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking for a direction to respondents to execute the absolute sale deed in favour of the petitioner in respect of Shed No.B-174, Industrial Estate, Peenya II Stage, Bangalore 560058 2. Petitioner is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act. The company is a small scale industry engaged in manufacture of hydraulic cylinders, power packs, fork lifts components etc. The petitioner-company was allotted an industrial site bearing Shed No.B-174, Industrial Estate Peenya II Stage, Bangalore by the respondents on lease-cum- sale agreement dated 21.7.1983. Pursuant to that, the petitioner has paid entire consideration amount to the respondents and has complied with the terms and conditions of the allotment. Since the respondents have not executed the sale deed in his favour, the petitioner had given a representation on 9.12.2010 to the respondents vide Annexure-C. Since, no action has been taken on the representation, the petitioner is before this Court.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
4. The petitioner has given representation on 9.12.2010 vide Annexure-C. Since, no action has been taken by the respondents, it would suffice if a direction is given to the respondents to consider the representation.
5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.
The petitioner is directed to give additional representation with all relevant documents within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
6. The respondent No.3-Mr.Haridas Pottah is at liberty to file objections to the representation dated 9.12.2010 and additional representation, if any, given by the petitioner within four weeks.
7. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed to consider the representation dated 9.12.2010 vide Annexure-C, additional representation if any, given by the petitioner and objections filed by respondent No.3, and shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within eight weeks from the date of additional representation given by the petitioner.
Sd/- JUDGE DM