M/S Ashok And Sons vs. Chief Secretary

Facts

These writ petitions challenged orders from the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District, refusing cinema exhibition licenses. The petitioners, M/s. Ashok and Son's and M/s. Santosh Enterprises, were in dispute with private respondents regarding properties housing Nartaki, Sapna, and Santosh theatres. The parties filed joint memos before the High Court of Karnataka, stating they had amicably resolved their disputes. The terms included M/s. Ashok and Son's conceding ownership of Nartaki and Sapna theatres to respondents 4-7A, withdrawing contentions, and agreeing to surrender possession. They also agreed to pay Rs. 1,25,00,000/- towards damages and litigation expenses in installments. M/s. Santosh Enterprises agreed to pay GST on damages and to surrender possession of Santosh Cinema theatre by August 17, 2028, after obtaining a license until that date.

Held

The Court held that in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, as detailed in the joint memos, the impugned orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Regional Commissioner were to be quashed. The Court directed the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District, to issue cinema exhibition licenses in favor of the petitioners, subject to their compliance with the terms and conditions stipulated in the joint memos. This exercise was to be completed within one week of receiving a certified copy of the order. The petitioners were also permitted to exhibit cinemas in the theaters in question in accordance with the law during the interim period. The settlement terms included specific payment schedules for damages, surrender of possession of properties, and the duration of the cinema licenses.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District, refusing to grant licenses for exhibition of cinemas are sustainable in light of the amicable settlement reached between the parties. The Petitioner (M/s. Ashok and Son's in WP 20178/2021) argued that the dispute with private respondents had been resolved amicably, as evidenced by the joint memo. They contended that the terms of the settlement should be honored, leading to the quashing of the impugned orders and the issuance of licenses. The Petitioner (M/s. Santosh Enterprises in WP 20181/2021) also relied on the joint memo to argue for the quashing of the impugned orders and the grant of licenses. The Revenue/State respondents did not appear to have filed specific arguments against the settlement, but their role was to implement the court's directions regarding the licenses.