IN THE HIXH CWRT OF KARNATAKA AT BAGALX)RE DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE 1998 Before THE HONBLE t.JUSTICE KUtkR RAJARATNAM P.NOs._15301/1998 C/w_15302/1998. Between: &nt.Sudha M.Snenoy, Major, f/o Sri.N.M.Snenoy, R/at No.A—102, Kastur idhama Apar trnent s, 9th Cross, 8th Main Road, Ma 1 leswar am, Bangalore-560 009. Petitioner (IN W.P,N0.15301/9d) Smt,K,V,Kalavatk Major, R/at No.A—103, Kasturidnamna Apartments, No.153, 8th Main, 9th Cross, Malleswaramn, Bangalore—560 003. Petitioner (In W.P.No.15302/98). (By Sri,M,Shiva Prakasn, Adv.) And: 1. Assistant Registrar of Money Lenders, Grain Merchant Co—operative Bank Building, k’amnpamahakavi Road, Chaiar ajapet, Banga1ore-56O 018w 2. Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (Co—operative) 4.3,Bui lding 0 Dr,Arñbedkar Road, anga.Lore560 001, by its Secretary 3. The Secretary, Vyalikaval buse Building Co—operative Society Ltd., No.100, 11th Cross, Malleswaramn, Banga1ore5a0 003. Respondents (common in both W.Ps). (Ey Sri,B. 1 eerappa, FCGP). V/ e2e w.PJO.15301/98 is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of Thdia praying to quash wide Ann.E. dated 30.8.97 by Ri and that of the Judgment passed by the ICAT (Co-Operative Bench) the R2 herein dated 6.4.98 wide Annex.!. *.P.NO.J5302/98 is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of Thdia. praying to quash the order passed by Rel wide Annex-C. dt. 30.8.97 and that of the Judgement passed by the Ra2 dt.6.4.98 wide Annex.D. These petitions coming on for preliminary hearing this, the Coixt made the followings ORDER The petitioners are members of the Society. They entered into an agreement at Annaureea fcc cmstrittion of f late • The agreement was Entered into on 24.6.1990 fcc a total valuation Cf b.2,54425/—. There was a furtner escalation of nearly a su:u of b. 64.000/’. — 1*,,. 2. The learned óenior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per Annexure-4 - construction agreee ment, there was no scope for increasing the price of the f lat ana submitted that amount agreed in the construction agreement will be binding on the Society and therefore society had no legal right to demand a further sum of b.64,000/e by way of escalation. He submitted that although there was an undertaking e3e / —3-. given by tne ‘4ember stating taat in tne event an escalation In tne construction, the petitioner would pay the escalated amount witnout demur. It was submitted by Mr.Tarakram triat It has not oecome part and parcel of tne Agreement entered into by tne petitioner with the Society. 3. The learned Gcit. Advocate submitted that the undertaking was given on 24,11,93 and is there fore binding on the petitioner. It was also subnitted that the escalation became necessary on account of the increased cost of construction. 4. The petitioners having given a declaration that they would be prepared to pay the escalation cost, Cannot flow state that tney are not liable to pay the escalation. In that View of tne matter, tne grit Petitions are dismiss. If tne petitioners seek some more time to pay the escalation cost, the Society may consiier the same ana QIsOSe it of in accordance witn law. I JUDGE Ak/v