Bangalore District Court
Sri.H.Manjunatha vs Sri.Srinivasalu on 29 June, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE XLI ADDL.CITY CIVIL JUDGE
AT BANGALORE [CCH.No.42]
PRESENT: SRI.BASAVARAJ B.COM., LL.M.
XLI Addl. City Civil Judge
Dated this the 29th day of June 2016
O.S.No.9433/2013
PLAINTIFF : Sri.H.Manjunatha,
S/o Hanumaiah
A/a 33 years,
R/a portion of house No.75,
Ground Floor, 1st Main Road,
7th Cross, J.C.Nagar,
Mahalakshmipuram,
Bangalore-86
(By Sri.K.V.V- Advocate)
V/s.
Defendants : 1. Sri.Srinivasalu,
S/o Late Kuppa Swamy,
A/a 57 years, R/a No.75,
1st Main Road, 1st Main Road,
7th Cross, Mahalakshmipuram,
Bengaluru-086.
2. Sri.Rachaiah,
S/o Chikke Gowda,
A/a 50 years,
R/at No.148, 6th Cross,
Azad Nagar, Opp to Gopal Mal
Bengaluru.
2 OS No.9433/2013
(D1 Exparte
(D2 by Sri.Sridhara-Advocate)
Date of Institution of the Suit: 27.12.2013
Nature of the suit
(Suit on Pronote, suit for Injunction Suit
declaration & possession, suit
for injunction)
Date of commencement of 02.01.2015
recording of evidence:
Date on which the Judgment 29.06.2016
was pronounced:
Total Duration: Year/s Month/s Day/s
02 06 02
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff filed this suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, their agents, workmen or any body interfering/dispossessing him from possession of suit schedule shop premises.
2. The suit schedule property as described in the plaint is as under:-
SCHEDULE All that piece and parcel R.C.C. roofed residential house premises, situated at out of portion property bearing No.75, at 3 OS No.9433/2013 Ground, situated at 1st Main Road, 7th Cross, J.C.Nagar, Mahalakshmipuram, Bengaluru-86, consisting of one hall, one kitchen, bath room, measuring East to West 10Ft's and North to South 15Ft's with basic civic amenities thereon, bounded on;
East by: Land Lord West by: Road, North by: Land Lord South by: Land Lord
3. The plaint averments in brief are as under:
The plaintiff is tenant under 1st defendant on rental basis in suit schedule house premises. The 1st defendant have represented that, he is owner of in respect of suit schedule house premises and he has agreed to let out the suit schedule house premises to the plaintiff on rental basis for a period of 11 months fro monthly rent of Rs.2,500/- and the plaintiff and 1st defendant have entered into a rental agreement dated 21/5/2013 and the plaintiff have paid sum of Rs.25,000/- as advance rental deposit to the 1st defendant. The plaintiff was occupied the suit schedule house premises as a tenant and 4 OS No.9433/2013 the plaintiff has been in lawful possession and enjoyment of the same. The defendant No.1, on 20/12/2013 came to suit schedule house premises along with the 2nd defendant and tried to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule premises without due process of law but the plaintiff some how resisted the illegal interference of defendants and the plaintiff approached the 1st defendant to return the advance security of Rs.25,000/- and to accommodate another six months period to vacate the schedule premises and the plaintiff is ready to vacate the same. But the 1st defendant has given evasive reply. Again on 26/12/2013, the defendants came to suit schedule house along with antisocial elements and tried to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule house premises and caused innumerable troubles and asked the plaintiff to quit and deliver vacant possession to defendants, but the plaintiff have resisted the same with the help of neighbors. More over the plaintiff have requested to defendants to repay the entire advance rental deposit amount of Rs.25,000/- and to accommodate 3 months time 5 OS No.9433/2013 to vacate the same so as to search alternative accommodation. But the defendants have demanded the plaintiff to vacate the suit schedule house premises then they will give the advance rental deposit amount after some time.
But the plaintiff has not agreed the same.
The defendants are claiming rights in respect of the suit schedule house premises but the plaintiff under the capacity of tenant has been physical lawful possession is not permitted to thrown out in to street by the defendants without due process of law more over the plaintiff is liable to vacate the suit schedule house premises only after receive of the entire advance amount of Rs.25,000/-. In order to protect the illegal interference of the defendants the plaintiff have approached the jurisdiction police but the police have influenced by the defendants and not supported to the plaintiff more over the defendants are having political influence, local support, financially sound and capable of doing any thing at any moment. So prays to decree the suit.
6 OS No.9433/2013
4. In spite of service of summons the defendant No.1 has not appeared before the court and hence he was placed exparte.
5. Upon service of summons, defendant No.2 appeared before the court through his counsel and filed written statement contending that there is no cause of action for filing the present suit, the alleged cause of action is imaginary and invited for the purpose of filing the above suit. The defendant No.2 has purchased the suit schedule property through auction and he was successful bidder and the sale certificate confirmed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal Bangalore in SA.No.173/2013 and the subject of this suit all ready decided by the Debt Recovery Tribunal under SARFAESI Act. If the plaintiff colluded with the defendant No.1 and defendant No.1 has not having any right to execute the lease agreement, and defendant No.1 ought to have filed an appeal under section 17 of the Debt Recovery Tribunal Act and not a 7 OS No.9433/2013 suit in view of specific bar contained in section 34 of the securitization Act. The sale notice has been published in the newspapers and same has been valued by concerned persons and the total outstanding as on 6.2.2013 is Rs.12,14,850/-. Therefore Indian Bank complying all the rules and provisions of law has sold the property in public auction conducted on 13.3.2013 in favour of 2nd defendant then he was declared as successful bidder who had bid for Rs.25,05,000/- against the reserve price of Rs.25.00 lakhs sale has been confirmed in favour of defendant No.2 and he has been given 15 days time to remit balance 75% of the said amount. Since the defendant No.2 being a successful bidder already remitted Rs.6,26,260/- being the 25% of bid amount. Even though he was deposit entire bid amount he is not put in possession of the property in question even though the auction was confirmed. M/s Raghavendra Enterprises, represented by its proprietor Sri.N.S.Chandra Mohan along with personal guarantee of defendant No.1 herein and others availed credit facility from Indian Bank on 3.7.2008 by executing necessary 8 OS No.9433/2013 loan documents besides creation of equitable mortgage of the property in question on the same day in favour of Indian Bank by deposit of title deeds of the property in question. The borrower and defendant No.1 surety became defaulters and thereby loan in question came to be classified as NPA 30.6.2009 as per RBI guidelines. Thereafter bank issued Demand Notice and possession Notice and thereby defendants has challenged said possession Notice and sale notice the above referred S.A.650/2009 and also S.A.442/2010 and even tenant also challenged the notice under S.A 300/2011. All the said SAs have been dismissed, confirming the Demand notice and possession notice and also confirming the intended sale notice dated 3.10.2009. The Indian Bank complying all the rules and provisions of law has sold the property in public auction conducted on 13.3.2013 and present defendant No.2 by name Rachaiah was declared as successful bidder he had bid for Rs.25,05,000/- against the reserve price of Rs.25.00 lakh sale has been confirmed in his favour and he has been given 15 days time to remit 9 OS No.9433/2013 balance 75% of the said amount. The successful bidder already remitted Rs.6,26,260/- being the 25% of bid amount. The defendant No.2 herein was successfully watching the auction initiated by Indian Bank. As soon as auction sale was conducted, the defendant No.1 had approached this Tribunal, seeking direction to quash/set aside the sale Notice dated 7.2.2013 in S.A.No.173/2013 and same was dismissed by the Hon'ble Debt Recovery tribunal on 22.10.2013. The plaintiff is was not a tenant in the suit schedule property at no point of time. The plaintiff colluded with the defendant No.1 with malafide intention they are created, fabricated and concocted documents/rent agreement and rent receipts for the purpose of the obtaining injunction order against true owner it is nothing but abuse of law. When the subject property in issue decided by the DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL this court having no jurisdiction to try the above case. So, prays to dismiss the suit.
10 OS No.9433/2013
6. On the basis of the pleadings of both the parties, the following issues have been framed by my learned predecessor in Office.
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the he is in lawful possession of the suit schedule property ?
2. Whether the defendant No.2 proves that he is the successful bidder and he has purchased the property in auction under the DRT proceedings initiated by the Bank?
3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is maintainable u/s 34 of the SARFAECI Act?
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of injunction as prayed for ?
5. What decree or order?
7. The plaintiff in order to prove his case, examined himself as PW-1 and got marked nine documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9. The defendant No.2 in order to prove his case, examined himself as DW-1 and got marked twelve documents at Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.12.
11 OS No.9433/2013
8. Heard the arguments and perused the records of the case.
9. My findings to the above issues are as under:
Issue No.1 - In the negative
Issue No.2 & 3 - In the affirmative
Issue No.4 - In the negative
Issue No.5 - As per the final order for the
following:
REASONS
10. ISSUE No.1 to 3:- Since these three issues are interconnected with each other hence to avoid repetition of facts and evidence they are taken up together for common discussion.
11. Sri.K.V.Venkatesh, the learned advocate appearing for the plaintiff argued that the plaintiff is the tenant under the defendant No.1 on monthly rent of 12 OS No.9433/2013 Rs.2,500/- through the lease agreement dated 21.05.2013. The defendants No.1 and 2 are trying to evict the plaintiff from the suit schedule property. If the defendant No.2 purchased the suit schedule property under the auction, then it has to evict the plaintiff in due process of law. Hence, the defendants are to be restrained from interfering in the possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and dispossessing the plaintiff from it.
12. Sri.Sridhara, the learned advocate appearing for the defendant No.2 argued that one M/s Raghavendra Enterprises had taken loan from the Indian Bank and for this loan the defendant No.1 was the guarantor by offering the suit schedule property as collateral security. The said Raghavendra Enterprises did not repay the loan. Hence, the Indian Bank sold the suit schedule property to the defendant No.2 as he is the highest bidder. The 13 OS No.9433/2013 sale certificate was confirmed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal Bangalore in SA.N.173/2013 and the subject matter of the suit is already decided by the Debt Recovery Tribunal under the SARFAESI Act. The defendant No.1 has no right to execute lease agreement in favour of the plaintiff. The suit schedule property is vacant. The defendant No.1 ought to have filed appeal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act before the Debt Recovery Tribunal and there is a bar to file the suit as per Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act.
13. It is the case of the plaintiff that he is the tenant under the 1st defendant and the 1st defendant represented that he is the owner of the suit schedule property and let out the same for a period of 11 months by entering into lease agreement dated 21.05.2013 on monthly rent of Rs.2,500/-. The defendants No.1 and 2 came to suit schedule property on 20.12.2013 and 14 OS No.9433/2013 26.12.2013 to dispossess him. The defendants cannot evict him without due process of law. In support of his case the plaintiff produced Ex.P.1 to P.9. Ex.P.1 is rent agreement, Ex.P.2 to P.5 are rent receipts, Ex.P.6 is current bill, Ex.P.7 to P.9 are three photographs pertaining to the suit house.
14. It is the case of the defendant No.2 that one M/s Raghavendra Enterprises had taken loan from the Indian Bank and for this loan the defendant No.1 was the guarantor by mortgaging the suit schedule property as collateral security. The said Raghavendra Enterprises did not repay the loan. Hence, the Indian Bank sold the suit schedule property to the defendant No.2 as he is the highest bidder. The sale certificate was confirmed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal Bangalore in SA.N.173/2013 and the subject matter of the suit is already decided by the Debt Recovery Tribunal under the SARFAESI Act. The 15 OS No.9433/2013 defendant No.1 has no right to execute lease agreement in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant No.1 ought to have filed appeal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act before the Debt Recovery Tribunal and there is a bar to file the suit as per Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act. The suit schedule property is vacant. In support of his case the defendant No.2 produced Ex.D.1 to D.12. Ex.D.1 is sale certificate dated 05.04.2013, Ex.D.2 is khatha certificate, Ex.D.3. is khatha extract, Ex.D.4 and D.5 are copy of notice and challan, Ex.D.6 is tax receipt, Ex.D.7 is certified copy of orders in SA.No.173/2013, Ex.D.8 is acceptance letter dated 13.03.2013, Ex.D.9 is c/c of order sheet in Cr.Misc.No.956/2011, Ex.D.10 to 12 are certified copies of orders in OS.5640/2013, 5641/2013 and 5643/2013.
15. So it is admitted fact that the defendant No.1 was the owner of the suit schedule property. The 16 OS No.9433/2013 pleadings of the parties and oral evidence of PW1 and DW1 as well as Ex.P.1 to P.9 and Ex.D.1 to D.12 disclose that the defendant No.1 stood as guarantor to Indian Bank for the loan taken by one M/s Raghavendra Enterprises by mortgaging the suit schedule property and executing the loan documents and the said M/s Raghavendra Enterprises became defaulter in the matter of repayment of loan. Since the said M/s Raghavendra Enterprises become defaulter, the bank treated the suit schedule property as non performing asset. Hence, the Indian Bank initiated auction under the SARFAESI Act. Then, the defendant No.1 preferred appeal before the Debt Recovery Tribunal in SA.No.650/2009 and also M/s Raghavendra Enterprises preferred appeal before the Debt Recovery Tribunal in SA.No.650/2009, wherein challenged the possession notice dated 30.10.2009 and both these appeals are dismissed on 23.12.2009 as the defendant No.1 undertook to regularize the account 17 OS No.9433/2013 within 10 days. Thereafter, the defendant No.1 did not comply the undertaking. The defendant No.1 also filed SA.442/2010 against the Indian bank and Raghavendra Enterprises, wherein challenged the sale notice dated 22.04.2011 and the same was disposed of on merits on 08.12.2010 holding that the defendant No.1 cannot challenge the demand notice and possession notice as they have been dealt and determined by the Tribunal in SA.No.650/2009. Before issue of demand notice and possession notice paper publication was given and the same was also brought to the knowledge of the defendant No.1 over telephone. The bank also initiated proceedings in Crl.Misc.No.956/2011 before the VII ACMM Court, Bangalore under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act to take possession of the schedule property. Thereafter, the bank as a secured creditor conducted the auction on 13.03.2013 and the defendant No.2 was declared as successful bidder. Thereafter the sale has been confirmed 18 OS No.9433/2013 in his favour. The defendant No.2 already remitted Rs.6,26,260/- being the 25% of the bid amount and he was given 15 days time to remit the balance 75% of the amount. Thereafter, the sale certificate was issued in the name of defendant No.2 and accordingly in holder khatha certificate and holder khatha extract the name of the defendant No.2 was entered. Accordingly, the defendant No.2 paid the tax. The defendant No.1 approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal to quash/set aside the sale notice dated 07.02.2013 and the same was dismissed. So, the defendant No.2 proved that he is the successful bidder and he has purchased the suit schedule property in auction under the DRT proceedings initiated by the Indian Bank.
16. During the course of cross-examination of PW1 he has admitted that the suit schedule property consisting of 4 portions. The three tenants by name 19 OS No.9433/2013 Ravi, Narasimhan and Khumansingh, who are residing in the three portions filed OS.No.5640/2013, 5641/2013, and 5643/2013 respectively for permanent injunction against the defendants No.1 and 2 and they were dismissed on 01.09.2014 holding that the suits are not maintainable in view of the SARFAESI Act.
17. The defendant No.1 himself filed SA.No.650/2009 and SA.No.442/2010 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, which were disposed of on 23.12.2009. When such being the case the defendant No.1 has no authority to execute Ex.P.1 in favour of the plaintiff on 21.05.2013. It is suggested to the PW1 that the suit schedule property is vacant and the same was denied by PW1. During the course of cross-examination to the DW1 he has admitted as 'I get vacated the plaintiff from the suit schedule property after the disposal of the suit'. So, the plaintiff is in unauthorized possession of 20 OS No.9433/2013 the suit schedule property and he is not in lawful possession of the suit schedule property.
18. The defendant contended at para No.7 of the written statement that suit is not maintainable as barred by Section 34 of SARFAESI Act. In this regard learned advocate appearing for defendant No.2 has relied on the following decisions reported in:
2013 STPL (Web) 895 SC (Jagadish Singh V/s Heeralal and others), wherein his lordship held that:
"We are of the view that the civil court jurisdiction is completely barred, so far as the "measure" taken by a secured creditor under sub-section(4) of Section 13 of the Securitisation Act, against which an aggrieved person has a right of appeal before the DRT or the Appellate Tribunal, to determine as to whether there has been any illegality in the "measures" taken. The bank in the instant case, has proceeded only 21 OS No.9433/2013 against secured assets of the borrowers on which no rights of respondent Nos.6 to 8 have been crystalised, before creating security interest in respect of the secured assets. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the High Court was in error in holding that only civil court has jurisdiction to examine as to whether the "measures"
taken by the secured creditor under sub-
section (4) of Section 13 of the Securitisation Act were legal or not. In such circumstances, the appeal is allowed and the judgment of the High Court is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs.
AIR 2014 MP 57 (Bhaiyalal Tiwari V/s Central Bank of India and others), wherein his lordship held that:
"Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (54 of 2002), Schedule .34, 13(4) - Taking possession of secured assets - Suit for permanent injunction by tenant restraining secured creditor from dispossessing him - Is barred in view of 22 OS No.9433/2013 S.34 of Act - Remedy is to file appeal under S.17 of Act.
2010(1) Kar.L.J. 267 (H.V.Ramakrishna and others V/s The Authorized Officer, Syndicate Bank, Malleshwaram Main Branch, Bangalore and others), wherein their lordships held as under:
"Securitisation and reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, Sections 13(2) and (13) and 14 - Constitution of India, Article 226 - Secured asset - Tenancy created in respect of residential premises offered as - validity of tenancy - Locus standi of tenant to challenge order passed by Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, on application filed by secured creditor Bank, under Section 14 of the Act, for taking possession of secured asset from defaulting borrower including right to transfer asset by way of lease, assignment or sale - Where right claimed by tenant was under tenancy created by defaulting borrower after the 23 OS No.9433/2013 received notice under Section 13(2) of the Act from secured creditor Bank, calling upon him to discharge his liability within sixty days of receipt of notice, and created without prior written consent of secured creditor Bank, tenancy held, is not valid, and consequently, tenant has to locus standi or right to challenge order passed by CMM under Section 14 of the Act.
Held: Apparently, the claim of the petitioners that they are lessees cannot be accepted, inasmuch as, the document which are sought to be pressed into service are executed only on 16.11.2009, i.e. after nearly one month from the date of passing of the order. Indeed, if the claim of the petitioners is that they are tenants since long, the lease documents ought to have been executed much earlier. Hence, the question of interfering with the order under Section 14 of the Securitisation Act does not arise."24 OS No.9433/2013
AIR 2011 KARNATAKA 138 (M.G.Ashwatha Shastri V/s Canara Bank, Chamarajpet Branch, Chamarajpet, Bangalore and others), wherein his lordship held as under:
"The scheme of SARFAESI Act is such that the Civil Court's jurisdiction to entertain any suit in respect of a matter which the Debt Recovery Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal is empowered to determine, is ousted. Further, the legislature has visualized that not only a borrowed but a non-borrower could also be aggrieved by the action of the bank. And the remedy of the aggrieved person is to file the appeal.
The Delhi High Court has put a meaningful interpretation on the words 'any person' found in Section 17 and has held that it is inclusive of the borrower, guarantor, tenant or any other person. In view of such an inclusive definition, the appellant-plaintiff has to approach the specialized forum created under the statute." 25 OS No.9433/2013
AIR 2010 SUPREME COURT 3413 (United Bank of India V/s Satyawati Tondon and others), wherein their lordships held as under:
"A) Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (54 of 2002) S.13(2)(4) -
Enforcement of security interest - Action directly against guarantor - Without taking action against borrower - Not illegal.
B) Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of
Security Interest Act (54 of 2002), Schedule .17 13(4) - Constitution of India, Art. 2226 - Remedies against action for recovery of secured debt - Words "any person" in S.17 - Includes guarantor or any person affected by action taken under S.13(4) - Writ petition filed by guarantor against such action -
Entertainment of, by High Court -
Misconceived as effective alternative remedy is available.".
26 OS No.9433/2013
19. So, from the above said rulings it is very clear that as per Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act even the unauthorized occupant i.e. plaintiff is also included in it and if he is aggrieved, then he has to approach Debt Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the Act and the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the matter and they are aptly applicable to the case on hand.
20. Section 9 of CPC, 1908, reads thus:
'Court to try on civil suits unless barred - The court shall (subject to provisions herein contained) have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred'.
21. The Section 34 of SARFAESI Act, 2002 reads as under:
"Sec.34. Civil Court not to have jurisdiction:-
No Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceedings in respect 27 OS No.9433/2013 of any matter which a Debts Recovery Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal is empowered by or under this Act to determine and no injunction shall be granted by any Court or other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act or under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1933 (51.of 1993)."
22. So, from the above provisions and as held in the above said rulings, it is very clear that the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, which is expressly barred where the proceedings in respect of the suit schedule property is empowered to be determined by the Debt Recovery Tribunal and hence the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable.
23. From the discussion made above, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff failed to prove that he is in lawful possession of the suit schedule property and defendant No.2 28 OS No.9433/2013 proved that he is the successful bidder and he has purchased the property in auction under the DRT Proceedings initiated by the bank and the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable. Hence, issue Nos.1 is answered in the negative and issue No.2 and 3 are answered in the affirmative.
24. ISSUE No.4 : In view of my finding on Issue No.1 in the negative as the plaintiff is in unauthorized occupation of the suit schedule property and in view of my findings on Issue No.3 in the affirmative as the suit is not maintainable and hence the plaintiff is not entitle for the relief of permanent injunction to protect his illegal possession and the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed with costs. Hence, I answered issue No.4 in the negative.
25.ISSUE NO.5: In the result, I proceed to pass the following :
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is dismissed with costs. 29 OS No.9433/2013 Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer directly on the computer, thereafter corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 29th day of June 2016).
( BASAVARAJ ) XLI Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE I. List of witnesses examined on behalf of :
a) Plaintiff's side:
P.W.1 M.Manjunath
b) Defendant's side:
D.W.1 Rachaiah
II. List of documents exhibited on behalf of :
a) Plaintiff's side:
Ex.P.1 Agreement of Rent
Ex.P.2 to P5 Rental receipts
Ex.P.6 Electricity Bill
Ex.P.7 to 9 Photographs
30 OS No.9433/2013
b) defendants side :
Ex.D.1 Certified copy of Sale certificate
Ex.D.2 Certified copy of Khatha Certificate
Ex.D.3 Khatha Extract
Ex.D.4 Notice
Ex.D.5 Challan
Ex.D.6 Tax receipt
Ex.D.7 Certified copy of the order in
S.A.No.173/2013 `
Ex.D.8 Certified copy of the acceptance
letter dt 13.3.2013
Ex.D.9 Certified copy of
Cr.Misc.No.956/2011
Ex.D.10 Certified copy of orders in
to 12 OS.No.5640/2013 5641/2013 and
5643/2013
( BASAVARAJ )
XLI ADDL.CITY CIVIL JUDGE
BANGALORE
31 OS No.9433/2013