M/S Tyre Works vs The Managing Director
2022 Latest Caselaw 4034 Kant

                                  1



    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

          DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                             PRESENT

           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

                                 AND

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

                      W.A.No.1157/2021

BETWEEN:

M/S. TYRE WORKS
PLOT NO.L-9 INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,
MADIKERE 571 201,
KODAGU DISTRICT
REF. BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
SRI R.S. BABU NAIDU,
S/O SRI S. R. SEETHARAM,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
                                          ... APPELLANT
(By Sri G.K.Bhat, Sr.Counsel for
    Smt. Sudha.D., Adv.)

AND:

1 . THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
    K. S. S. I. D. C. LIMITED,
    INDUSTRIAL LAYOUT,
    RAJAJINAGAR,
    BENGALURU 560 044.

2 . THE GENERAL MANAGER
    K. S. S. I. D. C. LIMITED,
    INDUSTRIAL LAYOUT,
    RAJAJINAGAR,
    BENGALURU 560 044.
                               2



3 . THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER
    K. S. S. I. D. C. LIMITED
    INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, YADAVAGIRI,
    MYSORE 570 020.

4 . THE ASSISTNAT GENERAL MANAGER
    K. S. S. I. D. C. LIMITED
    INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,
    YADAVAGIRI,
    MYSORE 570 020.

5 . THE MANAGER
    K. S. S. I. D. C. LIMITED
    INDUSTRIAL LAYOUT,
    KODIGE SOMWARPET TALUK,
    COORG DISTRICT 571 236.

6 . THE MANAGER
    KARNATAKA STATE INDUSTRIAL
    CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED
    MADIKERE 571 201,
    COORG DISTRICT.

7 . SRI G. E. NIRANJAN
    S/O SRI ESHWAR
    AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
    NO.3/98, ALANKAR HOUSE
    DASAVALA BADAVANE
    MEDIKERI 571 201,
    COORG DISTRICT.
                                            ... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri Puttige. R. Ramesh, Adv. for C/R4;
    Sri Bimbadhar. M. Gowdar, Adv. for C/R7)

     This writ appeal is filed under Section 4 of the
Karnataka High Court Act, praying to set aside the order of
the Learned Single Judge passed in W.P. No.7117/2021
dated 01.10.2021.

      This appeal coming on for Preliminary Hearing, this day,
Alok Aradhe J., delivered the following:
                               3



                          JUDGMENT

1. This intra court appeal has been filed against the order

dated 01.10.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge, by

which, the writ petition preferred by the appellant has been

dismissed.

2. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly stated

are, that an allotment of plot of land was made in favour of

one Sri Prabhakaran Pillai on 03.06.1977. On 01.07.1977, the

plot was leased for a period of 2 + 18 years. After his death,

the plot was transferred in the name of his father Sri

Shankaran Pannikkar. Respondent no.4 permitted the

transfer of the plot in question on 14.09.1981. The transferee

sought for change of constitution from proprietorship to

partnership by inducting other persons as partners. The

Corporation, on 09.03.1983, granted permission for change

of constitution of the proprietorship to partnership. In the

partnership, eight persons were inducted as partners. The

Corporation, thereafter, granted approval specifying the

shareholding and approved that after the death of Mr.

Prabhakaran Pillai, his 51% shareholding would devolve on

his legal representative in accordance with the personal law

applicable to them. Despite notices, the appellant did not get

the partnership firm registered. The Corporation sent notices

on 17.05.2006 and 19.07.2007.

3. However, despite the aforesaid notices, the appellant

failed to furnish the documents such as, permanent SSI

registration certificate, renewed insurance policy, audit

balance sheet, VAT returns, NOC from Karnataka Industrial

Co-operative Bank, Certificate from SSI Association about

functioning of the industrial unit. Thereupon, the Corporation

decided to auction the plant and machinery. The said plant

and machinery was auctioned. The aforesaid auction was

under challenge in the writ petition. The learned Single Judge,

by order dated 01.10.2021, has dismissed the writ petition.

4. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the

sale of plant and machinery and sale of land does not amount

to dispossession of the petitioner.

5. On the other hand, learned Counsel for respondent no.4

has supported the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

6. We have considered the submission made by the

learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

7. The appellant has failed to furnish the necessary

documents despite notices issued by the Corporation and has

also failed to get the partnership registered. Therefore, the

Corporation is justified in canceling the allotment for violation

of the terms and conditions of allotment. The appellant has

not produced any material before the learned Single Judge

that the proprietary firm was converted into a partnership

firm.

8. We do not find any ground to interfere with the order

passed by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, the learned

Single Judge has rightly declined to entertain the writ

petition. In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby

dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

KK