High Court Karnataka High Court

V.Prakash S/O Varadaraj vs The Bangalore Development … on 14 December, 2009

Karnataka High Court
V.Prakash S/O Varadaraj vs The Bangalore Development … on 14 December, 2009
Author: Mohan Shantanagoudar


v-u-w-nu-nun-q ‘vs

V am.

unnunu-uv-n unvu uvunf nllniifllflflfl ruurn S-UUKI U!’ RHKNHIRBR Rik?! QUUXI U!’ IRKNAIAKA KIUH UKJUKI’ U?’ KAXNAIAKH H§U’I’§ GU98!

IR TEE HIGH CGURT OF KARHATAKA KI’ BANGALORE
DATED TI-H8 THE 1473 DAY OF’ DECEMBER 2&9

EEIWIDRE

Tm nonnm ltR.JD’8TIt3E mam ”

WRIT PETITION NCLH99′? or’ 2ocw9%(B Dg$3%%%%LL% A T L

BE’F’§EEE.~’1’f :

V P?.Ai(A$I-E

sxo VARADARAJ

Assn ABOUT 38 ‘rams

R.-‘AT No.5, 5″‘ mass

am 1″ arms, 17″ §&AIN -.

SARGALURE-568 029. ~_ “~._-.,.’;..EE*r3;T:£oN£R

em’ SRI:REUB$¥l Jzscos a_pV.:J’:’:»V.,r«:”v.’a{;f1V-Izfsfgsx-%-i;-‘,’,~.V A:if%ejs–;,:

ms:

was aawsanonz ma.-m;.::sem:%:~% 8.?-..’.'{‘i-I€2§iiI”i’Y

T.m-Iownazazi &Q:;a;.:.,,;a.z§g was?
BAN(£»Ai:{IKE~56e._€}20 ‘ ‘ _

BY ITS tzcas-ea;:–ssIv<;*::~.r~$_?';V% — . .. .RESP€3NDE'?~IT

{av saz:a§.!;i 5;.' s*a;ss§::u;.1-;4:t"-?{'i§;:xsr*,)

vlrualnxavllln

V_»'r§a;1s L" wax? " "£'.fi1?_€';TvI(3H I5 FILED mesa ARTICLE

:"v.V2'2AeV:§§:n é:3%7 :';;1=j'z*1m soz~zs'r1:':'I.moN or mam, yazwzmz;

fa: "Q;J4§sHj:'*»5fH3"~:;f.i§z:cmz»A1*Iaa; exam aarrmn 03.06.2339
?AS5%'IE'§ 3'{"E*if~£_§;. 1'RE3E'6§§9£Exf'f 392 men Azixaguag-A Arm

" "*z%§«rI.é=:"' wrzwxarsz IS emanate 9:: FOR PRELIMIRAR?
, _ gsaargs 11:: *5' saga? THIS my, view mum' P-£33238} THE
E'0I,;Z?.Qh'I%i%3: -~

I':-I

…….. "Vang V,»-y nnmununnn rmarn uuux: ur nnxualnlsn flltafl Luuxi Ur lS.AltNA'IAiIA H£GI'i COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURY

3

we impuwad order cf fillatéen ‘w fiaausad an gm’
A..nn:mure–A dabeé 3.5.2DD§, m1:ic:eI3?q the alhtfit ef
aim mating in favour of the 5&1 afiatbae.

0&1 alkzttm submits that a smw-muse
@3115! 1:) wnaefiation of altm’nai:’ve sine
favcur was not hmesd to her.

reueah that the alternative to

ailuttece in HSR layout was in cf %11}@1 of
the @abxe 9?

Sim) Rubs, the ‘EDA
Rulas” rm ‘

3. reveals that the
fault 1i:as “*a:i’f_1rB 91′ the fault 431′ the
EDA, an me peazmm has paid

purchased aim. The albttec

afthe mattmg the mtimianm cmmat
x parficularly what: the sale dead is
V 2:1 fiwur $1′ the pefifiamr by the ox-final

…._.- ..-_.. -..-iv… an uwrIn’\!Ir’IIl’Il1-J’! irtvn \.¢\J’IJlIE LII’ RRKNHIMKA HIGH COURT

4. Sri Ravi C3′. S-abhahit, learned wmEa1a
on hcirfl’afBDA aubraaim that ths matter may be amt

back an am fin’ fresh msammn of the
aafi aubmzisaion emmot bc aeceptfi, ‘
cannot be directed to reds the & ‘ k
it has mwutad the sale: am in Em-rsur

allattee.


Be tlmt as it   an
wsed without  the same
cannot be   caxxnot
be    B  Amwv no

5.  %  anomaent/m-anammz, the

has mt anythirg before the am.

pkoed befixre the 313.51. The 31313;

ef the material on meazfl, allotted
_ site fiawur at’ the afil alkafiee. Thus, no fiault
” with the petitiener. G1: the am mm,
% to am mam armzng, the am 5; at fault. ‘rm

gv,»–>

vwuwnn we nu-uuunannn naun \.vu!u nauuwunan PIIUH LUURI U!” KAKNRIARA HIWH UUUKI UI’ KAKNATRIUK HIGH COURT 9? XARNATAKA HIGH COURT

5

pefifisnar cannot be made ta aufib.-;r because of the fault
ofB£m.’I’hisCcurtc3,om mtwfih tn puttheclock back

aPmrk3nglapaet3ftiIn1a.IftheBDA?mpm’n1itted2ar é1o

tbs: whoka procedure. it may musa

6. In vim? sf the same, the “éaf

vicie Anmumre:-A dated
amt same is liabk: to —};)¢ the
fiuflowing firderismade:- ‘M ” ‘M

Annmure-A
dame! — EDA. stands
§Uashe¢1: ._ A’ V’

Sd/*
EUDGE

f»_=¥m$g~ie.22.s9