M/S Radiant Infosystems Pvt Ltd vs Karnataka State Electronics
2021 Latest Caselaw 5208 Kant

                            1

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

                        BEFORE

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

         WRIT PETITION NO.20620 OF 2021 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:
M/S. RADIANT INFOSYSTEMS PVT. LTD.,
HAVING ITS REGISTRED OFF AT
NO.46, 7TH B MAIN ROAD,
JAYANGARA, 4TH BLOCK
BENGLURU - 560 011.
REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR
K.V. PRASHANTH
                                             ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. D.R. RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     KARNATAKA STATE ELECTRONICS
       DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED,
       REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRCTOR
       2ND FLOOR, TTMC A BLOCK,
       BMTC, SHANTHINAGAR,
       K.H. ROAD,
       BENGLAURU - 560 027.

2.   THE KEONICS
     (STATE OWNED UNDERTAKING)
     REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
     2ND FLOOR, TTMC A BLOCK,
     BMTC, SHANTHINAGAR,
     K.H. ROAD
     BENGLAURU - 560 027.
                                      ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. G.SANJAY, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
/ RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD DATED 9.1.2015 VIDE
ANNEXURE-Q WHICH IS SOUGHT TO BE IMPLEMENTED IN
TERMS OF COMMUNICATION DATED 25.10.2021 VIDE
ANNEXURE-R PASSED BY THE R2.
                               2


    THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                           ORDER

The subject matter of this writ petition is substantially

covered by the judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court

in W.P.No.846/2021 between M/s. SUSHEELA ASSOCIATES

VS. KARNATAKA STATE ELECTRONICS & ANOTHER,

disposed off on 18.02.2021, wherein reprieve has been

granted to the litigant.

2. The above assertion of learned counsel for the

petitioner is not much disputed by the learned Panel Counsel

appearing for the respondents through Caveat; however, he

contends that petitioner although had paid about 99% of the

amount due, has not remitted the remainder i.e., about 1%

and therefore, the relief of the kind which the Co-ordinate

Bench has granted cannot be extended to the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner at once submits

that he would instruct his client to pay all and whatever

amount is due along with the interest admissible in law no

sooner the intimation is received from the respondent and

that his submission may be considered as undertaking

subject to whatever right to challenge the petitioner has. This

is fair enough.

In the above circumstances, this writ petition is

disposed off quashing the impugned Annexures -Q & R;

petitioner is extended the same relief as has been granted to

the litigant in the cognate case supra, however, subject to

petitioner making good the remainder of the amount due

along with interest accruing thereon within two weeks from

the date an intimation is received from the respondents,

failing which, the impugned orders now quashed shall revive

on their own, as phoenix.

Costs made easy.

Sd/-

JUDGE

DS/JY