M.S.R.B. Cashew Industries Vs. Karnataka State Small Scale Industries Development Corporation Limited and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....no demand in writing made by her to the drawer of the cheque as required by law. - therefore, the complainant had no right to present a complaint. the amendment brought into force from 06.02.2003 did not give her a right to issue a notice of demand in respect of dishonoring of the cheque on 09.01.2003, which was intimated to her on 13.01.2003. therefore, the complaint lodged was defective and the learned magistrate could not have taken cognizance of the offence alleged. -judgment of acquittal passed by the fast track court is justified - negotiable instruments act, 1881 (act no. 55/2002 with effect from 6-2-2003) -clause (b) of proviso to section 138 -amendment by way of substitution - statutory provision -retrospective effect - discussed. (paras 13,14,15,16,20,21,22).....se between the petitioner and the respondent 5. but however, before the said plan could be executed the 1st respondent has allotted the 2 sheds in favour of the respondent 5 and the said allotment is questioned in this writ petition.2. incidentally, it is noticed that the allotment is of the year 2008 and respondent 5 has already established a unit in the 2 sheds. this court also did not grant an interim order, which would necessarily mean that the 5th respondent is operating the unit.3. sri vigneshwara s. shastri, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently submits that in all fairness an auction should have been held in respect of the 2 sheds. he submits that the claim of the petitioner is in respect of 2 sheds. petitioner would have been happy at least if one shed was allotted in his favour for establishing the unit. in the alternate, he further submits that the 1st respondent be directed to allot 2 sheds to the petitioner so that he can establish a cashew nut processing unit inasmuch as the petitioner has an expertise in the said field.4. sri a. anand shetty, learned counsel appearing for respondent 5 submits that pursuant to the allotment, respondent 5 has.....

Judgment:

ORDER

Ajit J. Gunjal, J.

1. Petitioner and respondent 5 are rival claimants in respect of two industrial sheds. Matter arises in the following manner:

Both the petitioner and respondent 5 wanted to establish a Cashew Nut Processing Unit at Kirumanjeshwara, Kundapura Taluk. Both the petitioner as well as respondent 5 made applications for allotment of industrial plots. The matter was placed before the Committee headed by respondent 6. Respondent 6 ultimately found that since there are two claims for the 2 sheds for establishing an identical unit, was of the view, that the said 2 sheds shall be auctioned inter se between the petitioner and the respondent 5. But however, before the said plan could be executed the 1st respondent has allotted the 2 sheds in favour of the respondent 5 and the said allotment is questioned in this writ petition.2. Incidentally, it is noticed that the allotment is of the year 2008 and respondent 5 has already established a unit in the 2 sheds. This Court also did not grant an interim order, which would necessarily mean that the 5th respondent is operating the unit.

3. Sri Vigneshwara S. Shastri, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently submits that in all fairness an auction should have been held in respect of the 2 sheds. He submits that the claim of the petitioner is in respect of 2 sheds. Petitioner would have been happy at least if one shed was allotted in his favour for establishing the unit. In the alternate, he further submits that the 1st respondent be directed to allot 2 sheds to the petitioner so that he can establish a Cashew Nut Processing Unit inasmuch as the petitioner has an expertise in the said field.

4. Sri A. Anand Shetty, learned Counsel appearing for respondent 5 submits that pursuant to the allotment, respondent 5 has deposited the amount and has already started functioning in the two sheds. To support his claim he has produced photographs of the two sheds, which clearly show that the unit has already been established.

5. Sri Ashok R. Kalyan Shetty, learned Counsel appearing for respondents 1, 2 and 4 submits that indeed, after the allotment of 2 sheds in favour of respondent 5, an offer was made to the petitioner indicating that 2 sheds would be allotted to the petitioner at Koteshpalya and the petitioner did not avail the said offer.

6. I have perused the papers. Apparently it is too late in the day for the petitioner to contend that the said 2 sheds in question be allotted to him inasmuch as much water has flown under the bridge. Respondent 5 has already established his unit and his been functioning there since the last 2 years. At this stage it is not possible to examine the matter further and direct eviction of respondent 5 and have it allotted to the petitioner. Indeed, it is to be noticed that the petitioner was offered an alternative industrial shed in a different locality but the said offer was not accepted by the petitioner. But however, wisdom has dawned on petitioner and now he is willing to accept an alternative industrial shed in the Small Scale Industrial Area which is called 'Vishwa'. Hence I am of the view, that if the petitioner makes an application for allotment of 2 industrial sheds in the same area or in a nearby locality the Corporation shall consider the same, having regard to the offer made by them earlier to allot alternative sheds. Hence the following: