The Karnataka High Court has affirmed a fundamental principle of property law: the rights of a third-party depositor of perishable goods cannot be compromised due to disputes between a landlord and tenant. This judgment provides critical clarity for businesses relying on third-party storage facilities, ensuring that commercial losses from spoilage are not weaponized in private contractual conflicts.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute arose from a landlord-tenant conflict between respondent No.6 (M/s Shagun Ventures, a sole proprietorship) and respondent No.5 (M/s Celsius Logistics Solutions Pvt. Ltd.), concerning the operation of a cold storage facility located at No. 1662, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, HSR Layout, Bengaluru. The appellant (M/s Bhairaveshwara Cool Point Pvt. Ltd.), as the landlord, alleged non-payment of rent by respondent No.5. Respondent No.5, in turn, was storing perishable frozen food products belonging to the petitioner (a wholesale trader of frozen food items) in the facility.
Key Facts
- The petitioner procured and stored approximately Rs. 45,00,000 worth of frozen goods, including pizza bases, desserts, and chicken-based products, in the cold storage facility operated by respondent No.5
- The goods are inherently perishable and require continuous controlled temperature conditions to prevent spoilage
- The petitioner is not a party to the landlord-tenant agreement between appellant (respondent No.6) and respondent No.5
- Access to the stored goods was obstructed by the appellant, who allegedly locked or restricted entry to the cold storage units citing non-payment of rent by respondent No.5
- The petitioner made repeated requests to the jurisdictional police authorities (including Station House Officer, Kumbalgodu Police Station) for intervention, but no effective action was taken
- The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 14570/2026 before the Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court seeking immediate release of the goods
Procedural History
- Date of obstruction: Not explicitly stated, but occurred prior to 30.04.2026
- Before 30.04.2026: Multiple representations made to police authorities without resolution
- 30.04.2026: Single Judge issued interim order directing respondent No.4 (Deputy Commissioner of Police, South West Division) to intervene and ensure immediate access and release of the goods
- 30.04.2026: Appellant filed Writ Appeal No. 1400 of 2026 against the interim order
- 07.05.2026: Division Bench heard the appeal and delivered judgment
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought immediate release of the stored perishable goods valued at Rs. 45,00,000. The appellant sought setting aside of the interim order dated 30.04.2026, arguing that it was issued without jurisdiction and prejudiced its contractual rights.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a landlord, in a dispute with its tenant over rent, may lawfully withhold access to goods stored by a third party in the leased premises, particularly when those goods are perishable and their detention risks irreversible commercial loss.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The appellant contended that it had not physically restrained access to the cold storage facility and that respondent No.5 remained in possession and control of the premises. It argued that the Single Judge erred in issuing an interim direction against a non-party to the underlying dispute, and that the order undermined contractual rights under the landlord-tenant agreement. It further submitted that the petitioner’s remedy lay in a civil suit for recovery, not a writ petition, and that the interim order was being misused by respondent No.5 to evade payment of outstanding rent.
For the Respondent
The petitioner and respondent No.6 (caveator) argued that the appellant’s actions - whether direct or indirect - effectively resulted in unlawful detention of third-party property. They emphasized the perishable nature of the goods, the imminent risk of spoilage, and the failure of police authorities to act despite repeated complaints. They relied on the principle that proprietary rights of a depositor cannot be subordinated to disputes between the storage provider and its landlord.
The Court's Analysis
The Division Bench examined the nature of the goods, the relationship between the parties, and the legal doctrine governing third-party rights in stored property. The Court observed that the petitioner, as a bona fide depositor, had no involvement in the landlord-tenant dispute and was not a party to any agreement that could justify the withholding of goods.
"The petitioner cannot be made to suffer on account of the inter se disputes between the appellant and respondent No.5 herein."
The Court emphasized that the detention of perishable goods under the pretext of a contractual dispute between two other parties constitutes an unlawful interference with proprietary rights. It noted that the value of the goods - Rs. 45,00,000 - was substantial and that their deterioration would result in irretrievable loss, not merely financial harm but commercial disruption.
The Court rejected the appellant’s argument that respondent No.5 retained control of the facility, finding that the practical effect of the appellant’s actions was to deny access to the goods. The Court held that the Single Judge acted within its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to prevent irreparable harm, particularly where no adequate remedy existed at law.
The Court further clarified that its interim direction was not a determination of the landlord-tenant dispute, but a protective measure to preserve the status of third-party property pending adjudication before the appropriate civil forum.
The Verdict
The writ appeal was dismissed. The interim order dated 30.04.2026 directing immediate access to and release of the goods stored in the cold storage facility was upheld. The Court explicitly clarified that this order does not prejudice the adjudication of the landlord-tenant dispute between the appellant and respondent No.5, which must be resolved by the appropriate civil court.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Third-Party Depositors Are Protected from Contractual Disputes
- Practitioners representing traders, logistics firms, or food processors storing goods in third-party facilities may now invoke this judgment to seek urgent judicial intervention when access is unlawfully denied
- The ruling establishes that proprietary rights of depositors override contractual claims between landlords and tenants
- Any attempt to lock, seal, or restrict access to stored goods on grounds of rent default is now legally untenable if the goods belong to a third party
Perishable Goods Demand Urgent Judicial Intervention
- Courts are likely to treat detention of perishable goods as a case of irreparable harm warranting immediate relief under Article 226
- Delay in seeking relief may be fatal; petitioners must document attempts to resolve the issue through police or administrative channels
- Valuation of goods (e.g., Rs. 45,00,000) and evidence of perishability (e.g., temperature logs, supplier certificates) are critical to establish urgency
Police Inaction Does Not Preclude Writ Jurisdiction
- Failure of police to act on complaints regarding unlawful detention of property does not bar a writ petition
- Courts may step in where administrative remedies are ineffective or non-existent
- This judgment reinforces the role of High Courts as guardians of fundamental property rights, even in commercial disputes
