TEJRAJ GULECHA Vs. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, in both these petitions, have sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the 1st respondent/ Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board ('the Board' for short) to take appropriate action against the 2nd respondent/Embassy East Business Park Private Limited ('the Company' for short) for alleged violation of terms and conditions of lease-cum-sale agreement dtd. 7/6/2007 including initiation of proceedings under Ss. 34 and 38 of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 ('the Act' for short) and have further sought a slew of prayers in furtherance of action to be taken against the 2nd respondent/Company.

(2.) Both the petitions urge identical issues. The respective learned counsel appearing for the parties to the lis have all addressed their submissions referring to the facts obtaining in Writ Petition No.18986 of 2021. Therefore, the facts obtaining in Writ Petition No.18986 of 2021 are narrated.

(3.) Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts in brief germane, are as follows:- The petitioner along with several others claims to have paid a sum of Rs.9,25,00,000.00 to the erstwhile shareholders of Concord India Private Limited ('CIPL' for short), the former entity of the 2nd respondent for transfer of 1,91,301 shares equivalent to 50% of the share holding in CIPL. It is the averment in the petition that consideration was paid pursuant to an understanding between the petitioner and the group that holds the 2nd respondent that each of them would hold 50% of the shareholding of CIPL. The understanding between the two was to jointly develop the marquee asset of a lease over a plot of land in Plot No.6 Kadugodi Industrial Area comprising in Sy.No.1, Block No.73 within the village limits of Kadugodi Plantation, Bidarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, Bengaluru which was measuring 78 acres and 2219 sq.mts. It is the averment in the petition that in furtherance of the said understanding, the petitioner along with other entities engaged with another group Mandava Holdings Private Limited for sub-leasing of 20 acres out of the leased property. The petitioner and the 2nd respondent have several disputes with regard to the aforesaid understanding between them and are parties to several disputes amongst themselves.