Aadhar Education Society vs. The Maratha Mandir

CRP/100041/2022HC KarnatakaGSTCNR KAHC02002205202219 April 2022Bench: SURAJ GOVINDARAJ6 pages
For Petitioner: SRI. MRUTYUNJAY TATA BANGI, ADVOCATEFor Respondent: SRI.DINESH M. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE
AI SummaryRemanded

Facts

The petitioner, Aadhar Education Society, filed a writ petition (WP No. 100451 of 2022) and a connected civil revision petition (CRP No. 100041 of 2022) challenging orders dated January 31, 2022, passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Belagavi, in E.P. No. 107 of 2021. The orders pertained to interim applications (I.A. Nos. 5 & 6 in the writ petition and I.A. No. III in the revision petition). The core dispute involved the terms of a lease agreement between the petitioner and the respondent, The Maratha Mandir. The parties subsequently filed a joint memo before the High Court, indicating they had amicably resolved the matter.

Held

The Court accepted the joint memo filed by both the petitioner and the respondent, acknowledging that the parties had amicably resolved their disputes. The Court found the terms of the settlement to be lawful. The petitioner was permitted to continue in the premises until May 31, 2023, with the condition of paying arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 72,000/- + GST per month until February 2022, and thereafter at an enhanced rate of 20% on or before the 10th of every month via demand draft. The respondent was directed to return the security deposit of Rs. 3,00,000/- to the petitioner upon vacating the premises. The Court stipulated that in case of default in payment for two consecutive months, the order passed in E.P. No. 107/2021 would automatically stand revived. The E.P. No. 107/2021 was ordered to stand closed subject to these conditions. No issues were expressly left undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the settlement terms agreed upon by the petitioner and respondent, as recorded in the joint memo, are lawful and should be accepted by the Court? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that they and the respondent had amicably agreed to extend the lease period until May 31, 2023. They undertook to vacate the premises by this date without requiring further recovery proceedings. The petitioner also agreed to pay rent at Rs. 72,000/- + GST per month until February 2022, and thereafter at an enhanced rate of 20% on or before the 10th of each month. They further committed to maintaining the building and filing a separate undertaking. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent, through its President, agreed to the terms outlined in the joint memo. The respondent's primary concern was the recovery of possession and the payment of rent/damages. The respondent agreed to return the security deposit of Rs. 3,00,000/- upon the petitioner vacating the premises.

Sections Cited

None explicitly discussed in relation to GST provisions, but the context implies a lease agreement where GST is applicable on rent.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: DR. DASHARATH TUKARAM BAMANE, REP. BY ITS,

Heard together (2 matters)

WP No. 100451 of 2022
CRP No. 100041 of 2022

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

DATED 31.1.2022, PASSED ON I.A.NO.5 AND 6 BY TH

The judgment continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

Reproduced from the public record of the Karnataka High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.