Leelavathi vs The Karnataka State Financial ... on 25 September, 2008

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Leelavathi vs The Karnataka State Financial ... on 25 September, 2008

Bench: D.V.Shylendra Kumar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

AT BANGALORE j
Dated this the 25"} day of September,   '  
amronm;  ._ A _ H   V
THE HOWBLE MR JUSTICE Av 

Writ Petfifon No 435 6"'af20{?5   

BETWEEN

2 .

' " '33&'_':«  MA_N_';i'.GING DIRECTOR

  '}f'HE  Ré;.c<3vERY OFFICER'
 KA.__RNA'E'AKA SFATE

'T ,NEAR CANTONMENF RAILWAY STATION

SMT LE§ELAVA'f'I~Ii  
WfO.MKLINCxAIAH __  .
AGED ABoUT56YE,ARSV..V g .
R/A'1'.NO. 145, 5TH iMA:'m'v.:go_A:3j;-_V_ Z
POOF?NA;}'R£'"¥;GNA XLAYOLET,  
UT'FARAI-£ALhiV__*.'. ~     .
BANGALORE-s6'o. 05  *  1 V' PETITIONER

 MMMM  " -- A. Tfgggy  1.§'¢};:kkg§iégouda, Adv.)

T}-IE i{mNATA:;A's'fAr:*¥E
; mzawcm. Acoseromvrxow

_~ '~'.,N(§)_. '1 1 V1 , '1'HIMM_A.i.AH ROAD
 NEAR' CANFONMENT RAILWAY STATION

EANGALORE-560 O52

FINANCIAL COR'PO}?A'I'ION
NO.-1/'1, THIMMAIAH ROAD

_:3ANc;ALoRE-560 052
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA

DEVELOPMENT BOARD
# 14/3, 2ND FLOOR, R' P BUILENNG

 



NRUPATHUNGA ROAD
BANGALORE~O1   
RERBY ITS CHAERMAN  R§;_s':=o'N1::e:~:Ts
[By Sn' Rudragowda, Adv for R-1 65.  V  " 
Sri PVChandrshekar, Adv., £0153-.3}'f,  . _
THIS PETITION IS FILED Uwoiséé AErT1c:,£:s :..22e__AN;3,'22? on
THE coNs'I'1*r1.moN 01:' ENDLA, §>RA'v:Nc;*To omse  
0129312 DATED 5-122094 1>Assr:.1:> ¥3Y1_'_I'HE ;«*1s2s*;~', R'E;S?OND~EN"'£'u
vans ANNEXURE-HAND    V    
THIS PETITION comma oi~i"'o;é1>2%;z:es Tmeoév, TH}; cover

MADE THE FOLLOWING:   _  
   °_"__-- 1'iQ--R. R'. T. 

Writ petition by  »__¥;*-ozrowcd certain
amount from  first "";res1§:otideﬁt-Kaznataka State
 '-  who, according to the

corporatioiy ._ti€.fat1ited in repayment of the loan

  it isVthe._is(cz'Tsion of the petitioner that the first

 rcs pond.ei1t§coI*poration had tried to recover more amount

thairiﬁ: 11Vé1t.s:--V';:>,{:Vi€?eLnced and that in the process had disposed

'gof the  property of the borrower for a price much

A  What perhaps it could have commanded in the

  Htarkct, in an auction sale held during the year 1994.



3

 it is the further version of the petitioner thaiﬂﬂn this
regard the mtitioner being aggieved had 
first respondent-Corporation to make good"

the amount and had also issued? is being no answer from t¥1eV.respo4i1de':1ts, this court for relief. ' V .V 2

3. Sri L S for the petitioner by drewing to the writ petition, whi¢h§;:..o1'an.erder*'es{sse(fi' 'oy...%IﬂS court in WP No 1344gvev¢)f'sg(;§(:j};:; (;;}4;:.3V31';3§g0O4 'o1iV:the earlier round of writ litigation the @eﬁﬁ(;ner, points out that While this court '(.hcfﬁi*3t IieSp0§1deﬂt-COI"p0rati0I1 to respond of t'he"'15epresentation of the petitioner sent Asleygryer, the first respo11dent--corporation has now only in terms of AI1I1exure~H to the writ 1""'~.__ '~petitior1__A end it is a most unreasozlabie reply and not A -sustejnable; that the ﬁrst respondermcorporation is not 4 positively responding to various contentions raiseriﬂey the petitioner in the legal notice etc. 'V 44

4. it is in this backgound the approached yet again seeking T respondent-corporation to make , the petiﬁoner due to hasty on {he first respondent-coI'poratio;;}1._"':A~ " «,t1_1e Vooerer under Section 29 of the Staf;e.. Act, 1951 [for short, the property at a price

5. respondents ---- KSFC, its recovery of?-icer. Vtiie Karnataka Industrial Areas " «..Devei'opLf3en§ have entered appearance through ..o::s'pate:nLents of objections have been ﬁled. respondents are represented by Sri B '-Rudrafiowda and Sri P V Chandrashekar is appearing for V V' ' '¥',I'1iITCi<'A.'1'CSpOI1£i€flt. »£/% 5

6. it is averred in the statement of objections that the site in question was only a site which belongs to thethird Iespondent--board, which had been leased to and it was only the leasehold rights V':

petitioner which was mortgaged »7 corporation and it is such Ieasehoid L» auctioned, but nevertheless 'of to' the board; that the ﬁaisie by the petitioner on the V etc.

7. It"is"11otf, for court to examine such aspectsz'iI1' this w;»'it while exercising jurisdiction of judicial review of adniiiiistrative action. The transaction V. a» contraetual, is nevertheless examined by this «:o'z,;:~ts respondent--eorporation is not only a Indiaﬁut aiso if is exercising statutory power under Vi 29 ofthe Act.

'state' the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution 6

8. But unfortunately, the eiaim itself is basedj:"e;1 the premise that the sale transaction which year 1994 was not vaiici one, resulted.._.irj"«».Ioe.$ to tile» petitioner etc. A matter of this ' 'ee'exe;e1ined '' in writ jurisdiction and that at point"V'ef V

9. While this writ' pe.tition"'ieexatr1ir1ed~1t)r various relief sought for the the petitioner to avaii of available to the petitioner 1'-{Ii ﬁle beneﬁt of pendency of ever since the date of filing other respects, this writ Petitjon Sell-

Iudqe V V' ' *pj1é~

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court