Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 49194 (KAR)

H. MAHADEVA v. KARNATAKA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION ( KSWC)

WP/19377/2022 · 2026-01-06

M G S Kamal

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:644 WP No. 19377 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 19377 OF 2022 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: H. MAHADEVA S/O. LATE HOMBEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, DOOR NO. 60, KERAGALLI POST, JAYAPURA HOBLI, K. SALUNDI, MYSORE-570 005. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SUDHANVA D.S.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. KARNATAKA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION (KSWC) REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, UGRANA BHAVAN, NO. 43, PRIME ROSE ROAD, NEAR GARUDA MALL, OPP. HOME STOP, BENGALURU-560 025. 2. FOOD COPORATION OF INDIA (FCI) REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER (KTK) KARNATAKA, 10, EAST END MAIN ROAD, NAL LAYOUT, 4TH T BLOCK EAST, TILAK NAGAR, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 041. 3. DIVISIONAL MANAGER Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:644 WP No. 19377 of 2022 FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, BM SRI NAGARA, METAGALLI POST, MYSURU-570 016. 4. THE REGIONAL MANAGER KARNATAKA STATE WARE HOUSING CORPORATION, SAYYAJJI RAO ROAD, MEDAR BLOCK, YADAVAGIRI, MYSURU-570 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G.V. VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R4; SRI. N. DINESH RAO., ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-1 AND 3 TO PAY A SUM OF RS. 82,57,115/- (RUPEES EIGHTY-TWO LAKHS FIFTY-SEVEN THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTEEN ONLY). 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:644 WP No. 19377 of 2022 ORAL ORDER Petitioner is before this Court seeking direction to the respondents to pay him Rs.82,57,115/- purportedly due to him an account of purported breach of promise committed by the respondents which they had made to occupy his godown situated at Chamarajanagar on rental basis. 2. The case sought to be made out by the petitioner purely falls within the domain of a private transaction involving disputed questions of facts. Same cannot be gone into under article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. At this juncture, the petitioner seeks liberty to avail such a remedy as may be available and permissible under law. Reserving such liberty to the petitioner, petition is disposed of. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE RU List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32