Trending :
Lawtext
Search
Login / Register
Sign In
HomeJudgement
Scroll Down To Discover
High Court

High Court of Karnataka Disposes Regular First Appeal Against Dismissal of Suit for Permanent Injunction and Order for Possession. Dispute centered on legality of employee's occupation of residential premises provided by employer after resignation.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: BENGALURU
Admin
2026-09-09 22:23:24
  • 154
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Issue of Consideration

KAHC010099462023_1

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Case Details

2024 LawText (KAR) (09) 45

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.392 OF 2023

2024-09-30

HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

SRI NARAYAN M.R., SRI P.D.SURANA, SRI NAGESHA POOJARI

MR. T. MANOHARAN

MR. BABANNA

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Civil suit for permanent injunction to protect possession over residential property, with counter-claim for possession.

Remedy Sought

Plaintiff sought permanent injunction to prevent dispossession; defendant sought possession and eviction.

Filing Reason

Plaintiff alleged that defendant, his employer, threatened to dispossess him from company-provided accommodation after resignation; defendant claimed plaintiff's possession became illegal post-resignation.

Previous Decisions

Trial Court dismissed suit for permanent injunction and ordered plaintiff to vacate and hand over possession to defendant.

Judgment Excerpts

The plaintiff has filed this appeal challenging the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.2422/2017, dated 06.02.2023, by the XXIX Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, thereby, the suit filed for permanent injunction is dismissed and also granted the relief of possession in favour of the defendant directing the plaintiff to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the suit schedule property to defendant. Brief facts of the case are as under: Plaintiff’s case: a) It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant is running a construction firm in the name and style as P.M.Construction and the plaintiff was working under the defendant from 1996 as Supervisor and also the defendant started business of running and maintaining swimming pool and was appointed as Administrator and was looking all the administration and management of the entire firm established by the defendant.

Procedural History

Plaintiff filed suit for permanent injunction in O.S.No.2422/2017. Trial Court (XXIX Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru) by judgment dated 06.02.2023 dismissed the suit and directed plaintiff to vacate and hand over vacant possession to defendant. Plaintiff filed Regular First Appeal under Section 96 CPC.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 96, Order 41 Rule 1
  • Companies Act, 2013: Section 452
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Tags :
permanent injunction possession resignation employer-employee accommodation illegal possession Section 452 Companies Act non-joinder of necessary party suit description inaccuracy counter-claim for possession

Pay once for this file or subscribe for unlimited downloads

Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Appeal of Employees in Cooperative Society Recruitment Case — Procedural Defects Not Attributable to Employees Cannot Invalidate Appointments After Long Service. The court held that appointments made pursuant to a public advert... 2026-09-22 04:52:47
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Quashes BDA Cancellation of EWS Site Allotment for Income Discrepancy — Violation of Natural Justice. The court held that cancellation without proper hearing is unsustainable and directed execution of sale deed upon payment ... 2026-09-22 04:52:45
Categories
Popular Tags
Writ Petition Natural Justice acquittal murder Compensation burden of proof limitation Article 226 land acquisition benefit of doubt
Follow Us

Bombay High Court Allows Appeals by Acquiring Body in Land Acquisition Compensation Cases,...

Bombay High Court Dismisses NHAI Appeals in Land Acquisition Compensation Dispute — Upho...

Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging Concurrent Findings in Suit for Spec...

High Court of Bombay Hears Section 11 Arbitration Application for Appointment of Arbitrato...

Bombay High Court Allows Assessee in Central Excise Refund Interest Dispute Under Section ...

Supreme Court Upholds Appellant in Limitation Dispute — Suit Remitted for Fresh Consider...

Supreme Court Refers Jurisdiction Conflict in Trade Marks Act and Commercial Courts Act to...

Supreme Court Dismisses Appeals in Tender Eligibility Dispute — Clarifies Judicial Revie...

Supreme Court Rejects Application Under Section 28A of Land Acquisition Act Due to Limitat...

Supreme Court Dismisses Appeals in Income Tax Dispute — Jurisdiction under Section 263 U...

Lost Your Password?