IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF APRIL 2018

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA S. CHAUHAN

WRIT PETITION NO.52320/2017 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

VINTAGE HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED

AN INDIAN COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE

COMPANIES ACT HAVING IT’S REGISTERED

OFFICE AT NO.9, MISSION ROAD,

(NOW P. KALINGA RAO ROAD),

BANGALORE – 560 027.

REPRESENTED BY IT’S MANAGING DIRECTOR,

MRS. KUNHIBI LAYINCHAIRAPURAKAL SAITHUMADA,

MAJOR.

…PETITIONER

(BY SMT. G. CHANDRAKALA, ADVOCATE )

AND:

HEALTHCARE GLOBAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED

AN INDIAN COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE

COMPANIES ACT HAVING IT’S REGISTERED

OFFICE AT NO.9, MISSION ROAD,

(NOW P. KALINGA RAO ROAD),

BANGALORE – 560 027.

REPRESENTED BY IT’S AUTHORISED SIGNATORY

AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,

S/O. SRI. CHANABASSAYYA.

…RESPONDENT

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226

AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET

ASIDE THE ORDER OF AD-INTERIM INJUNCTION GRANTED

UNTIL FURTHER ORDERS IN IA 1/17 IN A.A. 369/17 DTD

- 2 -

10.10.2017 PENDING OF THE FILE OF THE XLIII ADDL. CITY

CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE AT ANNEX-A, ETC.

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FORN PRELIMINARY

HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

The petitioner has prayed for following reliefs from

this Court:

“a) set aside the order of ad-interim injunction granted

until

further

orders

in

I.A.No.1

of

2017

in

A.A.No.369/2017 dated 10.10.2017 pending on the file of

the XLIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at

Bangalore (Annexure-A);

b) direct the Hon’ble Trial Court to dispose of the I.As.

filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC filed by the

respondent (Annexure-M) and I.A. filed under Order 39

Rule 4 CPC filed by the petitioner (Annexure-P;

c) restrain the respondents or anybody acting through

them from interfering with the access to the petitioner to

his portion of the demolished premises which has been

retained by the petitioner in the ground floor and the

fourth floor;

d) pass such other orders as may be deemed fit under

the facts and circumstances of the case.”

- 3 -

2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the petitioner

is a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956.

The petitioner claims to be the owner of the property viz.,

old No.7/8, now corresponding Municipal No.9, Mission

Road,

presently

renamed

as

P.Kalinga

Rao

Road,

Corporation Division No.73, Bangalore-560 027. According

to the petitioner, the respondent is also a Company

registered under the Companies Act, 1956. The respondent

is engaged in the business of hospitality. Since the

respondent was looking for an immovable property for the

purpose of leasing, on 10.8.2011, the petitioner and the

respondent entered into a lease deed. While leasing out

the property, the petitioner kept one room in the ground

floor, a Suite room in the first floor and a car parking

facility for itself.

3. According to the petitioner, on 5.10.2017, one of

the

Directors

of

the

petitioner

Company,

Mr.K.M.Mohammed Sherief, visited the leased property

and was shocked to note that the respondent-Company

- 4 -

has made some structural alterations, and has demolished

several portions of the building including the bridge

connecting the Restaurants and the Banquet Hall originally

situated in the first floor, water fountain in the ground

floor, and even the front portion/elevation of the building.

Therefore, on 5.10.2017, immediately, the petitioner sent

an email to the respondent in order to instruct the

respondent to stop further demolition of the leased

property. According to the petitioner, the lease deed does

not grant any right to the respondent to change the leased

property except for the purpose of maintenance.

4. On 6.10.2017, the respondent replied to the

petitioner wherein they claimed that they have not

damaged any part of