High Court Karnataka High Court

Bhor Industries Limited vs The Administrator on 20 October, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Bhor Industries Limited vs The Administrator on 20 October, 2009
Author: H N Das
IN mg HIGH COURT 0;?  3:1'  _ % 
DATED THIS THE 29:» my OF QCj'CBER,_..2GG9 : " " ' « a  

  A
THE HONBLE MR. 
fvm.No,  j_ ---- 

BE'YWEE\§= _    

BHOR IhTDUSI'_§iES igiwm)   V
A CGMFANY 1NC£}1{1?{3RATEDv_{B.\5]3ER
THE fl\II§)IA§'~I4 CDMP;.£,NIES..ACT;' 1956,
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT) _ " " '
M.S.R.AMA1.m., 1:~eI3Us'rR3;A:;EsTAT§
BANGALORE 560'a%s4;' '

 V.  BY  ..... .. V

 $}?1V3$ri.'M5;RJ.JTH?.._ 

Ab"Ifi10R1:;:E;;_) §E?REsE1~«rrAzIVE

, ,PE'I'ITIONER

; {By 5;}; sefévpasiéfixaa mm s.N.MUR:{H¥ ASSTSR)

%  f_ ' 'V  F THE ADMINISTRATGR
 BRUHAT' BANGALORE NIAHANAGARA PALIKE
" N.R.SQ_UARE

BANG_AL()REI 560 062

1

ww"



2. Ti-IE MEDICAL OFFICER (HEALTH)

BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKLE: _. ..  f f ~ , V 

SANIAYNAGAR DIVISXON

2ND FLOOR, YESHVVANTHPURCOMM£ERCLfi1.«A.fiv  " " '

COMP];-EC, YESHWANTHPUR
BANGALGRESGG 022.

3. M13. IAXMI LIVESTGCK FEEDS _l§RZWA?E LT13 ~ . T.  

A COMPANY mcoapomsrgn UNj::>ERL--. j' V  % ._
TBEINII}IANCOMPANIES"ACfI',195<;., . " '
I~1AVfl\¥GI'§'SOFFI(3EA'F   i 
M.S.RAMAIAH 1N1msTR1AL'Es--:::a.TE  
BANGALGRE5690a4._4.'*   
RE?RESm\F{'ED'BY_ITS..';'. 'V ..j   »

A{?1'HQRiSE1J'RfiPRE§?pfl'€'§;§*ff&'E  V  
CHIEF   ., '
SRI.A.S.MURALIDHA_R¢§g._  

4. 'Fi:LE--' As31s*f;m*1"'  HJGLNEER
{ELE(Z{'RI{1AL) {C.O;«&_§;§_)___' _

-  V' "'BES€;OMj5C-6 'SUB DIVISION
    
BA;~:.<:mLiA;{>__R, G€;)KUI,A HOUSE
~ 'saxvm,

  B§$.NGALORE~566 054.

..RES?ONDfl'~3T'S

u  {By Sri ASHOK HARANAILALLI IJOR R1 8: R2

Sri M.S.RAMBHAT 81 SRIPAB ASSTS FOR R3
Sri N.K.GUPTA E90}? R4
Sri SUNBARSWAMY RAMDAS AS813 EUR RS}

QLNN'



This writ petition filed under Articles 226  
Constitiztien of India praying to quash the 0rder.V§ia'e£é,d ?['_1';6.'29{)7..i _& i 

passed by the resprmdent 120.1.    ;

This petiticm coming en for hé3rii2.g "{hisiid§y,. zine 

made the foliowing;
«m»&*a  

Petitioner   lessee under
respondeni no.5. <     between the
petitioner   =z:;§i.5_, i*éiI_jeieVVp€iitioner is entitled to
  According to {he petitianer,

they s_ub~¥etV..t,h€ V p1:emi_sés~-- question in favour of third

- V.   Siriciéi ivthé' ivthirci respondent refused ta pay the

zni§I;tI’iI}«”v. 1ifiz’:::t;.vt2″s,§m,~v1;i}tior1er requested respondents 1 and 2 to cancei

the iiisenséiiriiiiifzivour esf third respondent and aiso requestcci the

.i”e1:;tl*; r$§onden: to disconneci the power supply to the premises

* iii’§<:i[ii.ziéjstiun. {finder the impugzed orders raspondents 1 and 2

ii ifzfiisecf to cancei the iicense in &vour of the thiré resmndent, so

3350 the fourth respondent refused £0 disconnect the power supply

{:3 the premises in question. Hence this petition.

,

2. During the penciency of th¥s writ p€ti[iOi?i;”‘{h§3~,_’§i3§.{(Zi

respondent vacated the premises in question and hanéxzé ‘£’)VTf:1«’Athf§t’

Vacant possession t0 the fifth respondent:-A’ §{.1rti’rer-.i_t'”‘ is’

dispute that fifth respondent haéi»T.<jis{1:1antied Vthe, zvfuich " V

was in occupeticm of third _respond'ent_'.'– §?'a;fther ieamefi counsei
for the petitioner submits theta civii' .-§L:.i_1:__iL§ §A::sti';uted against the

fifth reégondcntv ..cri"' possessian of the premism in

question. It1'..Yifi1V ef.tli'esed evelopments, the prayer in the Writ

" < _bec9tii'e'viz1.fructuous. The parties are bound by the

gleeigitgne-«f«Vti2e' rjixéil ceurt, which is now pending. Accordingly,

the "grit pezititgfm is hereby re§ected.

Séfm
SUDGE

DEB