Suresh K Nothani vs. Shanthakumari @ Muthu Kumari @ Kumari
Facts
The petitioners, Sri Suresh K. Nothani and Smt. Vandana S. Nothani, were carrying on business at Shop No. 1 of Suraj Corner, Bengaluru. They filed a petition challenging an order dated 15.02.2020 passed by the XVII Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes and Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, in H.R.C.No.10017/2018. The respondents are the landlords. The parties have arrived at a settlement and filed a joint memo before the High Court.
Held
The Court held that the terms of the compromise detailed in the joint memo are lawful and that there is no legal impediment to accepting them. The joint memo stipulated that the petitioners would vacate the premises within one year from the date of the memo, and agreed to an enhancement of the monthly rent from Rs. 4,774/- to Rs. 7,500/- with GST from the date of the memo. The petitioners also undertook to pay rents without default, failing which they would have no objection to the execution of the eviction order without further time. The Court found these terms to be lawful and accepted the compromise. Consequently, the judgment and decree of the trial Court were substituted by the terms of the joint memo, and the decree was modified accordingly. The petition was disposed of based on this settlement. The Court also directed the refund of court fees to the petitioners.
Key Issues
1. Whether the terms of the joint memo filed by the petitioners and respondents are lawful and can be accepted by the Court? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioners argued that they have reached a settlement with the respondents, and the petition should be disposed of in terms of the joint memo. They stated that the settlement was arrived at voluntarily, without coercion or undue influence. Respondents' Argument: The respondents, through their counsel, concurred with the petitioners' submission that a settlement has been reached and the petition should be disposed of as per the joint memo. They also confirmed the voluntary nature of the agreement.
Sections Cited
Section 46(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF APRIL, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
H.R.R.P.NO.18 OF 2020
BETWEEN:
SRI SURESH K.NOTHANI,
S/O LATE M.KANNIAHLAL NOTHANI,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS.
SMT. VANDANA S.NOTHANI,
W/O SURESH K.NOTHANI,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS.
CARRYING ON BUSINESS AT SHOP NO.1
OF SURAJ CORNER, NO.4, GOLLAR LANE,
COMMERCIAL STREET CROSS,
BENGALURU-560001. ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI PRASHANTH C.N, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT. SHANTHAKUMARI,
@ MUTHU KUMARI @ KUMARI,
W/O LATE R.M.RANGASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS,
R/AT NO.3, 1ST FLOOR, 1ST CROSS,
KAMARAJ ROAD,
BENGALURU-560042. 2
SRI R.CHANDRASHEKAR,
S/O LATE R.M.RANGASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
R/AT: OLD NO.5, NEW NO.4,
GOLLAR LANE,
BENGALURU-560042. 3. SMT. VARALAKSHMI,
W/O EALUMALAI,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
R/AT NO.6, NEW NO.15,
VEERAPILLAI STREET CROSS,
BENGALURU-560042. 4. SMT. AMUDHAVALLI,
W/O ASHOK KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/AT NO.5, 3RD CROSS,
SRINIVAS LAYOUT,
LINGARAJAPURAM,
BENGALURU-560084. 5. SMT. S.VIJAYALAKSHMI,
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.
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.