COMAP NO. 28/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU [M/S. MLCNC TECH AND OTHERS VS. SMT SHIMLA KUMARI AND ANOTHER] 25.11.2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA ORAL ORDER ON I.A.No.2/2025 (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE) 1. This is an application filed by the appellant No.2, one of the partners of Appellant No.1 / Company, inter alia praying that the amount of ₹20,25,000/- as deposited by the appellants with this Court, be returned to them. 2. The respondents have objected to the said return and have furnished a memo of calculation for disbursal of the amount deposited by the appellants with this Court. The tabular statement as furnished by the respondents, is set out below: December 2022 to January 2024 14 months x 1,12,000/- Rs.15,68,000/- February 2024 to October 2025 21 months x 1,20,000/- as per the order of this Hon'ble Court Rs.25,20,000/- Cost awarded in the suit Rs. 1,00,655/- Total amount of rents and damages Rs.41,88,655/- - 2 - COMAP NO. 28/2025 Amount deposited before Trial Court Rs.23,52,000/- Balance rents, damages and court cost payable by the appellants Rs.18,36,655/- Less security deposit refundable by respondents Rs.10,00,000/- Remaining Balance rents, damages and court cost payable by the appellants Rs. 8,36,655/- As per this Hon'ble Court depositing of 75% of damages before this Hon'ble Court by the appellants Rs.20,25,000/- Excess amount available after deducting the rents, damages and cost awarded by Court. Rs.11,88,345/- 3. The learned counsel for the appellants fairly submits that there is a dispute regarding the costs of ₹1,00,655/- as awarded by the Trial Court. However, after some arguments, he has agreed that the said amount will also be paid to the respondents. In terms of the aforesaid calculations, the respondents would be entitled to receive a sum of ₹8,36,655/- out of the amount deposited by the appellants with the Registry of this Court and the balance amount is required to be refunded to the appellants. 4. The learned counsel for the respondents also raised an issue as to the condition of the premises. He submitted that the premises handed over to the respondents was not in a proper - 3 - COMAP NO. 28/2025 condition. He submits that there was damage to the flooring and certain other fixtures. The learned counsel for the appellants disputes the same and submits that the entire renovation was carried out at its own cost and the respondents have no knowledge as to the condition in which the appellants had taken over possession of the subject premises as they were not the owners of the property at the material time. In the event there are any further disputes, we leave it open for the respondents to agitate the same, in accordance with law. 5. The Registry is directed to disburse the amount of ₹8,36,655/- to the respondents and refund the balance amount along with accrued interest if any, to the appellant No.1. 6. The respondents would also be entitled to the entire amount as deposited by the appellants before the Trial court. The application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE KS, List No.: 2 Sl No.: 23