- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29404 WP No. 16288 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 16288 OF 2022 (GM-KSR) BETWEEN: 1. Ms.LAKSHMI D JATTI AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, MANAGING DIRECTOR M/s.JATTI ENGINEERING INDIA PVT. LTD., NO 51, DWARKAMAI OUTER CIRCLE PATTANDUR AGRAHARA VILLAGE BEHIND LOURDES CHURCH, WHITEFIELD, BANGALORE 560 066. 2. M/s.JATTI ENGINEERING INDIA PVT LTD., COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT No.51, DWARKAMAI OUTER CIRCLE PATTANDUR AGRAHARA VILLAGE BEHIND LOURDES CHURCH, WHITEFIELD, BANGALORE - 560 066. REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR LAKSHMI D JATTI AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. NISCHAL DEV B R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. DWARKAMAI HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION REGISTERED UNDER THE KARNATAKA SOCIETIES Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29404 WP No. 16288 of 2022 REGISTRATION ACT, 1960 DWARKAMAI LAYOUT SY NO 51, ECC ROAD, WHITEFIELD BENGALURU -560 066 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY MR S SUBRAMANI. 2. THE REGISTRAR OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES, 3RD ZONE BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT NO 146 "SAHAKAR SOUDHA" 8TH CROSS, 3RD MAIN ROAD, MARGOSA ROAD, MALLESWARAM BENGALURU - 560 003. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ADITI G., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. GEORGE JOSEPH, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTAR, AGA FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE DWARKAMAI HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION AS ILLEGAL, VOID AB INITIO AND IN CONTRAVENTION OF SECTION 3 OF THE KARNATAKA SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1960 AND; QUASH THE REGISTRATION OF THE RESPONDENT ASSOCIATION DATED 22.07.2017 BEARING REGISTRATION NO.SOR-3/294/2017-2018 ANNEXURE-A ISSUED BY THE R2 UNDER THE KARNATAKA SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1960 ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29404 WP No. 16288 of 2022 ORAL ORDER The short grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent No.1-Association has been registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 (for short `Act') with certain objects which run contrary to the provisions of Section 3 of the Act. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner drawing attention of this Court specifically to clauses 4.2, 4.4, 4.5, 4.8 and 4.9 of the impugned bye-laws submits that Section 3 of the Act does not contemplate a Society to be registered under the provisions of the said Act to have such objects. As such, the very registration itself has to be quashed. He also points out the bye-laws of the Association contemplate collection of association funds from the members and to maintain corpus funds, invest and manage the same. He relies upon the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of VDB, Celadon Apartment Owners Association Vs Mr.Praveen Prakash and others dated 06.11.2019 passed in the Writ Appeal No.974/2019 and Writ Appeal Nos.1206- 1211/2019. Hence, seeks for allowing of the petition. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29404 WP No. 16288 of 2022 3. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 does not dispute the legal position particularly in the light of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of VDB, Celadon Apartment Owners Association Vs Mr.Praveen Prakash and others. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 on instruction however fairly submits that the respondent No.1 would ensure necessary steps are taken to delete the objectionable objects namely 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 4.8 and 4.9 of the said Association and any other clause which is found to be running contrary to the provisions of the Act. 5. Heard and perused the records. 6. The Division bench of this Court dealing with identical situation involving registration of a residential complex under the name and style of "VDB Celadon Apartment Owners Association", adverting to the provisions of Section 3 of the Act and the Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act, 1972, in the case of VDB Celadon Apartment Owners Association Vs - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29404 WP No. 16288 of 2022 Praveen Prakash and others at paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 7 has held as under: "4. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that the objects of the appellant Association will fall in the categories covered by Section 3 of the said Act of 1960. He pointed out that the dominant purpose or object of forming the said Association is to administer, maintain and run the buildings and apartments constructed by the aforesaid developer. He submitted that in fact, the appellant has been collecting maintenance charges for maintaining the residential complex from a majority of the apartment owners, barring a few of the owners of the apartments who are opposing the appellant. He submitted that there is nothing wrong with the registration of the appellant Association under the said Act of 1960 and that if the impugned order is maintained, the members who have not paid the maintenance will go scot-free. Without prejudice to his contentions, he submitted that the first to seventh respondents must co-operate for formation of the Association as contemplated by said Act of 1972. 5. We have given careful consideration to the submissions. 6. Section 3 of the said Act of 1960 reads thus: 3. Societies to which the Act applies.- The following societies may be registered under this Act, - Societies established for,- (a) the promotion of charity; (b) the promotion of education, science, literature, or the fine arts; (c) the promotion of sports; - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29404 WP No. 16288 of 2022 (d) the instruction and the diffusion of knowledge relating to commerce or industry or of any other useful knowledge; (e) the diffusion of political education; (f) the foundation or maintenance of libraries or reading rooms for general use among the members or open to the public, or of public museums and galleries of painting and other works of art; [(ff) the promotion of conservation and proper use of natural resources and scarce Infrastructural facilities like land, power, water, forest and such other resources and infrastructural facilities, as may be notified by the State Government from time to time.] g) the collection of natural history, mechanical and philosophical inventions Or designs and which intend to apply their profits, if any, or other income in promoting their objects and prohibit the payment of any divided or distribution of any income or profits among their members. Even according to the case of the appellant, the dominant object for the formation of the appellant Association is to administer, maintain and run the building and apartments. Clauses 5.1 and 5.2 are, even according to the learned counsel for the appellant, the dominant objects of the Association, and they read thus: 5.1 To administer, maintain and run the building and apartments known as VDB Celadon No.23/3, 23/4, 26/1, Shivanahalli Hobli, Jakkur Road, Yelalanka, Bangalore - 560064. 5.2 To Carry on the Day-to-day work relating to all aspects of the building. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29404 WP No. 16288 of 2022 apartments, common areas, common facilities and common services therein; 7. On a plain reading of Section 3 of the said Act of 1960, it is clear that the object of administering, maintaining and running the buildings and apartments and to carry on the day-to-day work relating to all the aspects of the buildings/apartments, common areas and common facilities will not be covered by any of the clauses (a) to (g) of Section 3 of the said Act of 1960. Even according to the case of the appellant, clauses 5.1 and 5.2 are its dominant objects. In fact, on the earlier date, we had granted time to the appellant to take instructions whether it proposes to apply for deletion of certain objects which are a part of the bye- laws of the appellant Association". 7. In the instant case clauses 4.2 to 4.9 under the heading Scope and Aims of the Association, Bye-law Nos.5.4, 5.5, 7.1 to 7.10, 8, 9 and various other bye-laws of the respondent-Society, providing for collection of corpus funds, maintenance charges, investments, regulation of construction etc., clearly runs contrary to the provisions of Section 3 of the Act. 8. In view of the settled position of law and in the light of the aforesaid clauses and the bye-laws, petitioner has made out a case. Mere deletion of few clauses here and there would not bring the same within the conformity of law. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29404 WP No. 16288 of 2022 9. Petition is accordingly allowed. The registration certificate at Annexure-A pertaining to the bye-laws produced along with the same is quashed. 10. Before parting necessary to note that it was incumbent upon the Registrar to have verified document/bye- law before according approval and registering the same under the Act. Dereliction of the duty lies to say on the part of the Registrar in discharging his function in the manner befitting his office has resulted in this unwarranted litigation. The concerned respondent/Registrar be made liable to pay cost of Rs.1,00,000/- for he not adhering to the requirement of the law which he is expected to and the said sum shall be paid to the "Chief Minister Relief Fund" within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE SBN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46