Proprietary rights of a third-party depositor over perishable goods cannot be overridden or compromised by inter se disputes between a landlord and a tenant regarding the premises where the goods are stored.

Digitally signed by PANKAJA S

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 30/04/2026 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NO.14570/2026.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K)

1. This intra-Court appeal is preferred by the appellant/respondent No.6 assailing the interim order dated 30.04.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.14570/2026, whereby respondent No.4 therein was directed to forthwith intervene in the matter and ensure that the petitioner is granted immediate access to, and release of, the goods stored in the cold storage facility operated by respondent No.5 therein.

2. We have heard the learned counsel Smt.Varsha for learned counsel Sri K.M.Prakash appearing for the appellant, Smt.Saritha Kulkarni, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri Mohammed Nawaz Shariff, learned counsel for caveator-petitioner/respondent No.6 herein.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to by their ranks in the writ petition.

4. Briefly stated facts of the case are that:

The petitioner claims to be the bona fide trader engaged in the business of wholesale trading of frozen food products. It is the specific case of the petitioner that substantial quantities of frozen food items, including pizza bases, desserts and chicken-based products, have been procured in bulk from various suppliers and stored in a cold storage facility operated by respondent No.5, who is stated to be a tenant under respondent No.6. The goods so stored are admittedly perishable in nature and require controlled storage conditions to preserve their quality, shelf life and commercial value and that the total value of the goods stored in the said cold storage was stated to be approximately Rs.45,00,000/-.

5. It is the further case of the petitioner that certain inter se disputes had arisen between respondent Nos.5 and 6 with regard to the landlord–tenant arrangement governing the cold storage premises, on account of which access to the petitioner’s goods was obstructed and the same were wrongfully withheld within the premises. It is contended that the petitioner cannot be made to suffer for disputes between the respondents, particularly when the goods in question are perishable in nature and susceptible to rapid deterioration and spoilage. It is further contended that denial of access to the said goods would result in irretrievable loss and injury to the petitioner. In that view of the matter, the petitioner instituted the writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus and an interim direction for release of the goods.

6. The learned Single Judge, having come to the conclusion that the act of respondent Nos.5 and 6 in withholding the petitioner’s goods under the guise of their inter se dispute was wholly unjustified, observed that any dispute between the landlord and tenant cannot override the proprietary rights of a third-party depositor, nor can the same justify the unlawful detention of perishable goods entrusted for storage. Accordingly, respondent No.4 was directed to intervene in the matter and ensure that the petitioner is granted immediate access to, and release of, the goods stored in the cold storage facility.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently contended that the learned Single Judge has erred in issuing the impugned interim direction, inasmuch as t