M/S Bhartiya Urban Private Limited vs. The State Of Karnataka
Held
The Court held that in view of the submissions made and considering the principle of parity and equality before law enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, the impugned interim order dated 03.07.2020 should be modified. The demand for ground rent impugned in the writ petition was stayed, subject to further orders to be passed in the writ petition. The Court clarified that the modification made in the appeal was only with regard to the demand for ground rent. The appeal was disposed of in these terms.
Facts
The appellant, M/s Bhartiya Urban Private Limited, challenged an interim order dated 03/07/2020 passed by a learned Single Judge in W.P.No.7973/2020. The interim order directed the appellant to execute a bank guarantee for the demanded ground rent and GST, which was the subject of the writ petition. The appellant argued that in numerous other writ petitions concerning the validity of ground rent imposition, the court had granted a complete stay of the demand without requiring a bank guarantee. The appellant sought modification of the interim order to grant an unconditional stay of the ground rent and GST demand, citing the principle of parity.
Key Issues
1. Whether the interim order dated 03/07/2020, directing the appellant to execute a bank guarantee for the demanded ground rent and GST, should be modified on the principle of parity with other similar writ petitions where unconditional stays were granted? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning the interpretation and application of interim relief principles and Article 14 of the Constitution of India). Contentions: Petitioner/Appellant: Argued that in innumerable writ petitions, a complete stay of the demand for ground rent was granted without any condition of executing a bank guarantee. They sought modification of the impugned interim order on the principle of parity, as seen in several other interim orders passed by the Court in similar writ petitions. Respondents (State of Karnataka and Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike): Did not dispute the fact that in several writ petitions, the Court had granted a stay of the demand for ground rent without imposing conditions regarding the execution of a bank guarantee.
Sections Cited
Article 14
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2020 PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
W.A.No.537/2020 (LB –BMP) BETWEEN: M/s Bhartiya Urban Private Limited, (Ertwhile, Bhartiya City Developers Private Limited) A Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, Having its Registered Office at: 56/7, Nallambakkam Village (Via Vandalur), Chennai, Tamil Nadu – 600 048. And Corporate Office at: 5/1, Palace Road, Bengaluru – 560 001. Represented by its authorized Signatory, Mr. Shama Sunder R.J.
… Appellant
(By Sri. V.Srinivasa Raghavan, Senior Counsel for Sri. Lomesh Kiran N, Advocate)
AND:
State of Karnataka, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, 4 Floor, Vikas Soudha, Ambedkar Veedhi, Bengaluru – 560 001. 2
Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, N.R.Square, Bengaluru – 560 002. Represented by its Commissioner.
Joint Director, Town Planning (North), Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, N.R.Square, Bengaluru – 560 002. … Respondents
(By Sri. T.L.Kiran Kumar, AGA for R-
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.