High Court Karnataka High Court

H M Constructions vs Krishna Vithal Rao Kulkarni on 28 July, 2009

Karnataka High Court
H M Constructions vs Krishna Vithal Rao Kulkarni on 28 July, 2009
Author: P.D.Dinakaran(Cj) & V.G.Sabhahit
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT 

DATED THIS THE 28:12 DAY OF JULY 2099- I  A' 

PRESENT

THE I-ION'BLE MR. 13.1). DINAKA::;R'AN'_,@;Hi'§;Fi;)U_ST1c}é:'  

AND. V
THE HON'BLE MR.JUsT*1.§§E v.G.sAA13HA;-HIT 

WRIT PETITI_QiIA_ NQ;'1"i4A§é;L/2006

BETWEEN:  A

1

HAVING ITSREGISTERED    'V
OFFICEAT   '   

HM. GENES"/A"1--IIOU'SE,._   " _ "

cUNN1N.(3H.A.fM ROAD"? «. 
BANGA;J,QRE-'&36ao'5.2'«--.

RL:PREsE§a_TEVD « BY .1_T~s..__ PARTNERS. .. PETITICNER '

H M CONSTRUCTIONS V'

(By Sri :A13H1NAVR,-~L:AD§/(XEATE. )

AND:

 KRISHNA {rm-1A:,.:eAo KULKARNI
'LATE VITHAL RAO RKULKARNI

' " ~ _AC.v,ED. ABOUT 71 YEARS

V' . R','AT_N'O;'2VQ.1,

 '--.wEsT";?A'£e:K APARTMENTS

A  14TH 'Af.-CROSS,

 1TH MAIN ROAD
MALLESWARAM,

' ~ : ;3ANGALoRE--560003

 MRS BEENA KULKARNI

 



2

W /O KRISHNA V. KULKARNI
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS

R/AT NO.2o1,

WEST PARK APARTMENTS

MTH 'A' CROSS,

um MAIN ROAD

MALLESWARAM,  *   'A .
BANGALC)RE--56OOO3.  RESPON.D_E2NVTS_:' ._

(By Sri : 1:>.PAvANES1~i, ADVOCATEQT  ;.   '

THIS WP. IS FILED PRAYING T'0A'QUASI'"_i'.v'f1"I;'nd'3'()R'ijERi.".'
PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA _S'E'_ATE OONSUM}:«:R__'O1.S?UTE 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION DATED30.5.2005"IN-ZAPQEAL NO.
246/2004 VIDE ANX--N.     - 

T his Writ petition  Hearing On
this day, SABHAHIT J.', made theV"tOIlOwi._ng.Q. __ 

 iiS.>f1'i-Ed uhdef Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constittitioti aggrieved by the Order passed

by the P§:a1jf1a.taka.  Consumer Disputes Redressal

.«vV.pCOrn_n'1§'i$SiOp..V Bai'1gaiOre (hereinafter called 'the State

 305.2006 wherein the appeal filed by the

vsiriritihh'-peti'tiOheriA'y:=.herein in Appeal NO246/2004 has been

adismisseciiydihreicting the parties to bear their Own costs.

R9»

 



and accordingly, dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved by the

said dismissal of the appeai by order dated 30.5.20{)_€s,_ this

writ petition is filed by the appellant before 

Commission.

4. The matter was referred to the MedicjationiiCentreand

Mediation Centre has returned the :f'"iAle'( toii"--t_he.

16.2.2009 stating that no agreement coLi1d;__be_rea:ch.e'd;'  
5. We have heard the 1earn'ed'L_'cot1nsel appearing for the

petitioner and the Iearned '' 'appearing for the

respondents.*- 1 

6. iL_earr1ed’=. iCouns’e«.I:”appearing for the petitioner

submitted. that ‘-th’e”appieal.fi1ed before the State Commission

.flo’t2..%h’t beeniimaillowed and the order Passed by the

‘e<5n.siim=gr~«.1§*¢;%g;;p.i.~ directing the writ petitioner to execute the

sale -deed.~i~n_ vifaviour of the complainant in respect of A and B

'schedu1"e.V_p'roperties is iiable to be set aside as the same has

K};

not been passed in accordance with law and the writ fieitietion

may be allowed.

7. On the other hand, learriedcounsel the it

respondents submitted that the ofd¢er::’_’pa’sseid. _h3(i:

Commission is justified and doe_s”~r1ot suffer .from –~en*or or’- V

illegality as to call for interferenC_e._ir1this writ petvitiorf.

8. We have givezhi” cafeful i’c:_on:sideration to the

contention of the leariied’ fotjiiithe parties and

scrutinised the matefial’o11jjrecord. V

9} The .mat.er.iai’on<.reco_rd would clearly show that there
was an agpeemef1t».'oetWe_e'n._ complainant and the opposite

party–;w1*it petitioiieriheireiri and the complainant was put in

oiithe giiioioerty in the year 1994. However, the

not execute the sale deed though the

complairiantvihad made payment of Rs.15,26,000/~ as per the

'agreement§ The opposite party contended that the additional

"'zi(orl;'jiA"A.'valued at Rs.72.449/– has been done for the

;\K3~=.

” Lreiendexé; Yes / No

_’WVeb.I+fc>st: Yes /No

complainant and the complainant is liable to pay the said
amount akso. Accepting the said contention of the opposite
party~the writ petitioner herein in addition to
already paid Rs.1:5,26,000/– by the comp1ainari:ti’*
agreement, the complainant has also .,b£fen.’_:uu
Rs.72,449/- at the time of registrat’§«onT’_of’
therefore, the order passedi–_,:»*;>§»TV_ the istateeuiCe-‘mm.i~esion’ehe
confirming the order passed justified

and does not suffer frorn’-9iin.y or-illegality as to call for

interference in t_’exer’¢:;S¢ n foiriediction of this court.
Accordingly; wejjhokdfij thaitthere i”s”I1o” merit in the writ petition
and passntheé following order; ”

The viditeepetitione is: dieimissed.

Chief Justice

Sd/-3
EUDGE