WINNIE MANOJ KOSHY v. KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
WP/13091/2025 · 2025-12-11
Suraj Govindaraj
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 38814 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 38814 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
- 1 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54747 WP No. 13091 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 13091 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
1.
WINNIE MANOJ KOSHY D/O. MANOJ KOSHY AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/ AT FLAT NUMBER 106 CHOWRIAPPA CONSTELLATION NARAYANAPURA HENNUR MAIN ROAD KOTHANUR POST BANGALORE 560077
2.
MR. CHERIAN A. PAUL S/O LATE PAUL CHERIAN AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS.
3.
MRS. SARAMMA CHERIAN PAUL W/O CHERIAN A. PAUL AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS.
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT VILLA NO. C-11, STERLING VILLA GRANDE HOSKOTE-WHITEFIELD MAIN ROAD SEEGEHALLI, WHITEFIELD BANGALORE 560115.
REP BY POWER HOLDER THEIR SPECIAL OF ATTORNEY
NISHANT CHERIAN PAUL S/O CHERIAN A PAUL THE SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS AT RESIDING AT C 11, PLOT NO. 104 STERLING VILLA GRANDE ASHRAM SEEGEHALLI, SAI BABA ROAD HOSKOTE WHITEFIELD MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU - 560115
Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54747 WP No. 13091 of 2025
...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SV KGIRIDHAR, ADVOCATE FOR SMT/ SRI. AKSHAYA B M., ADVOCATE) AND:
1.
KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY REGULATORY AUTHORITY, SECOND FLOOR SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK, 3RD CROSS ROAD CSI COMPOUND, MISSION ROAD SAMPANGI RAMA NAGARA, BENGALURU KARNATAKA-560 027. ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR K., ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INIDA PRAYING TO QUASH AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DTD. 02.08.2023 PASSED BY THE HONBLE KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY IN CMP/210223/0007657 (PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ ORAL ORDER
1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: A. Quash and set aside the judgment dated 02.08.2023 passed by the Hon'ble Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority in CMP/210223/0007657 (produced as ANNEXURE A); B. Grant such other order/s as this Hon'ble Court deems fit based on the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.
- 3 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54747 WP No. 13091 of 2025
2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the prohibition imposed by the Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority vide its
order dated 02.08.2023 passed in CMP/210223/0007657, prohibiting the petitioners No.2 and 3 from creating any further sales by way of agreement or executing any sale deed of apartment or creating third party interest until official certificate is obtained. The petitioner No.1 claiming to be agreement holder, petitioners No.2 and 3 being the landowners, are before this Court contending that petitioners No.2 and 3 wish to execute sale deeds in favour of petitioner No.1 and the petitioner No.1 wish to receive such sale.
3. The counsel for respondent submits that there is an appeal which has already been filed before the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, which is pending.
4. Having heard both the counsels, what can be seen from the order passed by the KRERA is that there is a direction to the landowners and developers both considered to be promoters to complete the project with all amenities within 60 days from the date of the order and obtain
- 4 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54747 WP No. 13091 of 2025
occupancy certificate and to establish association of allottees under the Karnataka Co-operatives Act or Companies Act within 30 days of the order.
5. In furtherance of which, there is a prohibition which has been imposed as regard the execution of any further sale agreement or sale deed. All these aspects being an issue in an appeal before the Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority, I am of the considered opinion that the present proceedings being parallel proceedings are not maintainable. If at all any reliefs are required to be sought for by the petitioners, the same would have to be sought for in the appeal which is pending. Reserving liberty to the petitioners to do so, the petition stands
disposed.
SD/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE
PRS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0