Karnataka High Court
Sri. M. B. Nagakumar vs Sri. S. R. Ravi Kumar on 1 April, 2025
Author: Krishna S Dixit
Bench: Krishna S Dixit
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:13505-DB
WP No. 7281 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 7281 OF 2024 (GM-CON)
BETWEEN:
SRI. M. B. NAGAKUMAR,
S/O LATE MN BASAVARAJAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
PROPRIETOR OF M/S PREMIER PROPERTIES,
RESIDING AT NO 2270/1, CHITTARANJAN MAHAL,
VINOBHA ROAD, JAYALAKSHMIPURAM,
MYSORE 570 012.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SANDESH C R.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. S. R. RAVI KUMAR,
S/O LATE S RAMARAO,
Digitally AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
signed by RESIDING AT NO 51/A 1ST CROSS,
CHETAN B C JAYALAXMIPURAM, MYSURU - 570 012.
Location:
HIGH COURT 2. SRI. M B NAGARAJ,
OF S/O LATE MN BASAVARAJAIAH,
KARNATAKA
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
DIRECTOR OF M/S PREMIER PROPERTIES,
RESIDING AT NO 2270/1, CHITTARANJAN MAHAL,
VINOBHA ROAD, JAYALAKSHMIPURAM,
MYSORE - 570 012.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MILASH ARROL NORONHA., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2 SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:13505-DB
WP No. 7281 of 2024
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL
FOR THE RECORDS IN EXECUTION APPLICATION IN EA No-
02/2023 PENDING CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE HON'BLE
KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION (PRINCIPAL BENCH) BENGALURU VIDE
ANNEXURE-A AND B) ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER
QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER 03.07.2023 IN ISSUING
NBW AND ALSO ON 31.01.2024 IN REISSUING NBW AS
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR No-1 PETITIONER BY THE
HONBLE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION (PRINCIPAL BENCH) BENGALURU IN EXECUTION
APPLICATION IN EA No-2/2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT)
Petitioner, a builder by occupation, is knocking at the
doors of writ court for assailing the order dated 3.7.2023
whereby, NBW has been issued followed by its re-issuance
on 31.1.2024 by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes
NC: 2025:KHC:13505-DB
Redressal Commission, Bangalore, in Execution Case i.e.,
E.A.No.2/2023.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that in the
Execution Proceedings of the kind, issuance of NBW is
uncalled for and that the Commission failed to see the
repercussions of NBW on the liberties of citizens like the
petitioner. He also took the court through the pages of
Paper Book to buttress his point. Learned counsel
appearing for the 1st respondent-Consumer per contra
resists the petition making submission in justification of
the measures take by the Commission in the subject
Execution Proceedings. He emphasizes that his client has
served Indian Navy for more than a decade and that
despite making full payment, the subject flat has been
sold to a third party, with no justification whatsoever.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and
having perused the Petition Papers, we decline indulgence
in the matter for the following reasons:
NC: 2025:KHC:13505-DB
3.1 Admittedly, the 1st respondent had registered
Consumer Complaint No.465/2017 alleging that despite
full payment of agreed price, the builders have
clandestinely sold the subject flat to some other person for
a higher value vide registered sale deed dated 25.3.2015
and therefore, he should get refund of Rs.44,58,001/- with
12 % interest per annum along with a compensation of
Rs.3,00,000/-. Despite sufficient opportunity, petitioner
did not file his objections.
3.2 The State Commission vide order dated 4.4.2022
allowed the complaint and directed inter alia the petitioner
to refund Rs.44,58,001/- with 12 % interest per annum
and to pay Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation in
addition to Rs.25,000/-, being the cost of litigation. Time
for compliance was three months. This was unsuccessfully
challenged before the National Commission, we are told at
the Bar. Despite that the petitioner has not complied with
the direction of the State Commission, there being
absolutely no justification whatsoever. However, learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that his client has
NC: 2025:KHC:13505-DB
already paid some amount to the contesting respondent.
No evidence to vouch the same is produced before us.
3.3 Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly concedes
before us that his client had not filed any
objections/version resisting the complaint and that he had
sold the subject flat to another person for Rs.46,00,000/-
vide registered sale deed dated 25.3.2015. This act on the
part of the petitioner is nothing but a fraud on the
consumer who had admittedly made entire payment. Once
entire sale price is remitted, equitable interest is created in
the property in favour of the buyer, absence of regular
conveyance notwithstanding. In that view of the matter,
the State Commission has granted the relief as
aforementioned and that the challenge to the same before
the National Commission has ended in vain.
3.4 It hardly needs to be stated that the 1st respondent
herein namely the consumer, has served in the Defence
Department of this Country i.e., in Indian Navy and now,
is in the evening of his life. Having paid the hard earned
NC: 2025:KHC:13505-DB
money, he wanted to have a shelter of his own. However,
that dream did not come true because of the fraudulent
act of the petitioner/builder who sold the very same flat to
a third party for a higher sum. Even then he did not refund
the money which the consumer had remitted by bank
cheques, may be a small amount in cash. There is no
dispute about the receipt of amount. A Navy man is made
to fight the legal battle for more than eight years. This is
absolutely unfair and treacherous on the part of builder.
This leads us to the irresistible conclusion: "fraud has
reached its crescendo". Deeds as foul as these are
inconceivable. We are reminded of the words of
Shakespeare:
"Thus much of this, will make Black, white;
foul, fair; wrong, right; Base, noble; Ha, you
gods! why this?"
3.5 A Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated
5.4.2024 had stayed the Execution Case No.2/2023
subject to petitioner depositing in the Registry a sum of
Rs.10 Lakh on or before 8.4.2024 and another like sum on
NC: 2025:KHC:13505-DB
or before 19.4.2024. Counsel for the petitioner submits
that this amount is accordingly deposited. An application is
also filed by the 1st respondent seeking release of the said
amount. As already mentioned above, absolutely no case
is made out by the petitioner for the grant of any relief in
constitutional jurisdiction. Such a discretionary power is
not meant for unscrupulous litigants like the petitioner.
Granting relief to such persons amounts to placing
premium on illegality.
In the above circumstances, this petition being
devoid of merits, is liable to be and accordingly dismissed
with a cost of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh) only,
payable to the 1st respondent-Consumer, within four
weeks, failing which he shall be liable to pay additional
sum of Rs.500/- per day for the first month and
Rs.1,000/- per day for the period next following. Petitioner
is warned of contempt action should he fail to comply with
this order.
Registry is directed to hand the entire amount in
deposit along with interest if any, accruing thereon, to the
1st respondent-Consumer Sri.S.R.Ravi Kumar, forthwith.
Delay in this regard will be viewed seriously.
NC: 2025:KHC:13505-DB
The State Commission is requested to accomplish the
execution on a warfooting keeping in view the decision of
Apex Court in RAHUL S SHAH vs. JINENDRA KUMAR
GANDHI, (2021) 6 SCC 418.
Sd/-
(KRISHNA S DIXIT)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR)
JUDGE
LRS/cbc
