MAXWORTH REALTY INDIA LIMITED vs H N GORAKSHANATH

Court
Karnataka High Court

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60518
WP No. 7035 of 2024

CNR: KAHC010143242024





IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 30 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.PRAMOD

WRIT PETITION NO. 7035 OF 2024 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

MAXWORTH REALTY INDIA LIMITED
REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.22/1
RAILWAY PARALLEL ROAD,
NEHRU NAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560020
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR,
SRI. KESAVA K
COMPANY INCORPORATED
UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 1952
…PETITIONER









(BY SRI. NISHAN G K.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. H N GORAKSHANATH
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
SON OF NOT KNOWN,
RESIDING AT NO.29,
RD
ISIRI 3 FLOOR,
CANARA BANK COLONY,
TH
8 CROSS, CHANDRALAYOUT,
BENGALURU - 560072.

2. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDHAR,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK,
KANDHAYA BHAVANA,

Digitally signed
by
SHARADAVANI
B
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60518
WP No. 7035 of 2024

CNR: KAHC010143242024



K.G.ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 009.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAJU S., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTAR, AGA FOR R2)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ATTACHMENT ORDER DTD 22.01.2024 PASSED BY THE
SPECIAL TAHASILDAR, BANGALORE NORTH, BANGALORE
BEARING NO. MSC/RERA/CR/18/23-24 (ANNEXURE-C); AND
ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.PRAMOD

ORAL ORDER
In the present writ petition, the petitioner has called
in question the validity of the attachment order dated
22.01.2024 at Annexure-C, whereby the petitioner has
been directed to refund a sum of Rs.52,47,412/- (Rupees
Fifty-Two Lakhs Forty-Seven Thousand Four Hundred and
Twelve only), being the amount paid by respondent No.1
along with interest, within a period of 60 days from the
date of the order, as well as the Order dated 30.01.2023

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60518
WP No. 7035 of 2024

CNR: KAHC010143242024



passed by the Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority
at Annexure-A.

2. Heard Sri. Nishan G K. learned advocate for
petitioner, Sri. Raju S, learned counsel for respondent
No.1 and Sri. Mahantesh Shettar, learned AGA for
respondent No.2.

3. Respondent No.1, being aggrieved by the non-
completion of the project known as "Max Madhura",
developed by the petitioner, filed a complaint under
Section 31 of the Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Act, 2016 (for short, 'the RERA Act') before
the Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (for short,
'RERA'), which was registered as Complaint
No.CMP/200802/0006292. Upon consideration of the
complaint and adjudication of the dispute, RERA allowed
the said complaint by order dated 30.01.2023 at
Annexure-A.

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60518
WP No. 7035 of 2024

CNR: KAHC010143242024



4. In the said circumstances, as the petitioner
failed to comply with the order dated 30.01.2023 passed
by the Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (for
short, 'the Authority') in Complaint
No.CMP/200802/0006292 at Annexure-A, respondent No.1
initiated proceedings for recovery of the amount pursuant
to the said order. Accordingly, notices were issued to the
petitioner calling upon the petitioner to refund the amount.
Despite issuance of the notices, the petitioner failed to
refund the amount. Consequently, respondent No.2 passed
the attachment order (Japti Hukum) dated 22.01.2024 at
Annexure-C for recovery of a sum of Rs.52,47,412/-
(Rupees Fifty-Two Lakhs Forty-Seven Thousand Four
Hundred and Twelve only). Aggrieved by the attachment
order dated 22.01.2024 at Annexure-C as well as the final
order dated 30.01.2023 passed by the Authority at
Annexure-A, the petitioner has preferred the present writ
petition.

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60518
WP No. 7035 of 2024

CNR: KAHC010143242024



5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner could not complete the project
on account of the acquisition proceedings undertaken by
the Greater Bengaluru Authority (the then Bengaluru
Development Authority) in respect of Dr. Shivarama
Karanth Layout. In support of the said submission, learned
counsel places reliance on Clause 5.2.
5.1 Learned counsel further seeks liberty to avail of
the statutory remedy of appeal before the competent
Appellate Tribunal by challenging the order dated
30.01.2023 passed by the Karnataka Real Estate
Regulatory Authority at Annexure-A.
5.2 It is further submitted that, for availing of the
said statutory remedy, the petitioner is required to make a
pre-deposit of 30% of the amount in question as a
condition precedent to the entertainment of the appeal.

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60518
WP No. 7035 of 2024

CNR: KAHC010143242024



6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.1 submits that despite the lapse of a
considerable period, the petitioner has failed to refund the
amount payable to respondent No.1 pursuant to the order
dated 30.01.2023 passed by the Karnataka Real Estate
Regulatory Authority at Annexure-A. It is further
submitted that the petitioner has an efficacious alternative
statutory remedy of appeal before the competent
Appellate Tribunal to challenge the said order. Learned
counsel contends that the attachment order dated
22.01.2024 at Annexure-C has been passed solely for the
purpose of enforcing and giving effect to the order dated
30.01.2023 at Annexure-A and is therefore consequential
in nature. Hence, unless the substantive order at
Annexure-A is set aside or modified by the competent
appellate forum, the petitioner cannot independently
challenge the consequential attachment order at
Annexure-C without assailing the order forming the very
basis of such recovery proceedings.

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60518
WP No. 7035 of 2024

CNR: KAHC010143242024



7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for
the parties and upon perusal of the material on record, it
is evident that the attachment order dated 22.01.2024 at
Annexure-C has been passed pursuant to the order dated
30.01.2023 at Annexure-A, passed by the Karnataka Real
Estate Regulatory Authority. The attachment order is thus
consequential in nature and has been issued for
enforcement of the substantive order at Annexure-A.
Admittedly, the petitioner has not availed of the statutory
remedy of appeal available under Section 44 of the Real
Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. In the
absence of any challenge to the substantive order before
the competent appellate forum, the consequential
attachment order cannot be examined independently on
the grounds urged against the substantive order.
8. In view of the availability of an efficacious
alternative statutory remedy and having regard to the
submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60518
WP No. 7035 of 2024

CNR: KAHC010143242024



seeking liberty to prefer an appeal, this Court is not
inclined to entertain the writ petition on merits.
Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of ,
reserving liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order
dated 30.01.2023 at Annexure-A before the Karnataka
Real Estate Appellate Tribunal under Section 44 of the
RERA Act, subject to compliance with the statutory
requirements, as applicable under law.
9. In the event of the petitioner preferring such an
appeal, it is open to the petitioner to seek exclusion of the
period spent in prosecuting the present writ petition for
the purpose of computation of limitation. If such a plea is
raised, the Appellate Tribunal shall consider the same in
accordance with law, including the applicable provisions of
the Limitation Act, 1963.
10. All contentions of the parties are kept open to
be urged before the Appellate Tribunal. It is made clear
that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60518
WP No. 7035 of 2024

CNR: KAHC010143242024



merits of the matter, and the Appellate Tribunal shall
consider the appeal, if preferred, independently and in
accordance with law.
Ordered accordingly.

Sd/-
(B.PRAMOD)
JUDGE


BSV
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2