IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT APPEAL NO.3925 OF 2019 CONNECTED WITH WRIT APPEAL NO.3950 OF 2019 (S-R) IN WRIT APPEAL NO.3925 OF 2019:
BETWEEN:
1. SRI S. YATHINDRA KUMAR SON OF LATE S.K.P. NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.52-A, 9TH MAIN, 4TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 010.
2 . SRI D.N. SUKUMAR SON OF LATE D. NARASAPPA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.442, 16TH ‘A’ MAIN ROAD, 36TH CROSS, 4TH ‘T’ BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 041.
3 . SRI J.M. SRINIVAS SON OF LATE H. MUNISWAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.4/1, 34TH CROSS, JOOGANAHALLI, 2ND BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 010.
...APPELLANTS (BY SRI NANJA REDDY P.N., ADVOCATE) AND:
1 . HMT LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, HMT BHAVAN, NO.59, BELLARY ROAD, BENGALURU-560 032.
2 . THE MANAGING DIRECTOR HMT MACHINE TOOLS LIMITED, HMT BHAVAN, NO.59, BELLARY ROAD, BENGALURU-560 032.
3 . GENERAL MANAGER HMT MACHINE TOOLS LIMITED, BENGALURU COMPLEX, JALAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 013.
…RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN REVIEW PETITION NOS.538 OF 2017 AND 543-544 OF 2017 DATED 20.09.2019 AND DISMISS THE REVIEW PETITIONS FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEFS AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO GRANT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE INCLUDING THE COSTS, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
IN WRIT APPEAL NO.3950 OF 2019: BETWEEN:
1. SRI V. BYRAPPA SON OF LATE VENKATASWAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.S-56, SECTOR-1, HMT COLONY, JALAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 013.
2. SRI G.R. VASUDEV SON OF LATE G.B. RAMAKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.86, II MAIN, RAMANJANEYANAGAR, CHIKKALLASANDRA, BENGALURU-560 061.
3 . SRI A. PURUSHOTHAMA SON OF LATE KESHAVA HEBBAR, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.170/1, II MAIN ROAD, SESHADRIPURAM, BENGALURU-560 020.
4 . SRI K.M. MUNIBASAVARAJU SON OF LATE MUNIHUCHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.490, 6TH CROSS, 9TH MAIN, 2ND BLOCK, HMT LAYOUT, VIDYARANYAPURA, BENGALURU-560 097.
5 . SRI SHARANAPPA SON OF ADIVEPPA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.416, 10 CROSS, 3RD BLOCK, HMT LAYOUT, VIDYARANYAPURA, BENGALURU-560 097.
(BY SRI NANJA REDDY P.N., ADVOCATE) AND:
1 . HMT LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, HMT BHAVAN, NO.59, BELLARY ROAD, BENGALURU-560 032.
2 . THE MANAGING DIRECTOR HMT MACHINE TOOLS LIMITED, HMT BHAVAN, NO.59, BELLARY ROAD, BENGALURU-560 032.
3 . GENERAL MANAGER HMT MACHINE TOOLS LIMITED, BENGALURU COMPLEX, JALAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 013.
...APPELLANTS …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN REVIEW PETITION NOS.547 OF 2017 AND 576-579 OF 2017 DATED 20.09.2019 AND DISMISS THE REVIEW PETITIONS FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEFS AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO GRANT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE INCLUDING THE COSTS, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
***** THESE WRIT APPEALS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT These appeals are filed being aggrieved by a common order dated 20.09.2019, passed in Review Petition Nos.538 of 2017 and 543-544 of 2017. In terms whereof, the learned Single Judge recalled the order dated 13.01.2016, passed in Writ petition Nos.45250-45252 of 2014. The writ petitions were restored to file.
2. The learned counsel for the review petitioner submits that subsequent to the order of the learned Single Judge, the same has been given effect to. That one payment has been deposited by the respondents and the said amount still continue to be in deposit as on date. Therefore, since the order of the learned Single Judge has been complied with, there is nothing to be reviewed. It is further pleaded that allowing the review petition and setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge has caused undue loss and hardship to the review petitioner.
3. However, on hearing learned counsels, we are unable to accept the said contention. Even though the order of the learned Single Judge has been recalled and has been implemented, the amount has not been dispatched to the review petitioners. The amount is stated to be in deposit. Therefore, the amount in deposit is also a factor to be considered by the learned Single Judge, while considering the Writ Petition Nos.27796-800 of 2014. It is needless to state that the after effect of the order of the learned Single Judge has to be necessarily considered while disposing off the writ petitions. The writ appeals are dismissed with the aforesaid observations.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE JJ/-