Karnataka High Court
Gopal Singh vs The Karnataka State Financial ... on 14 August, 2008
Author: N.Kumar
Bench: N.Kumar
Hi TI-IE Hm! court or xaamwrazm arr
Dated this the 14*'! day
mm aownm
Writ Petitjmon Ncyigm-KSFQ1
s _V
Writ Pefition r%m_3?.19M% 1% 2063 {A'c};»:4KsFc1
Writ Pefifian %a;i2m?_ 7! V
BETWEEN: V 5
S/0 Ba}.é§iiSi1:1gh "
Aged about 54 years " *
Rjo Chokks?m4dA:;nah9l1iA.
MaIur 'Faiu1( 'V .. ' ' V
Kozamisirict A _ ...Pctitioncr
K S Narayanaswamy, Advocate)
_ I State
Financial Corporation
A. , %_ Having its Head Ofice
_ "At Road, No.1/1
-Bangalore, mpresented
By its Managing Dmtor
.4 " The Kmnataka State
Corporation
Bangalrore Rum} Zone
<
N€.>.48, Church Street
Bangaiore --- 560 0071
represented
By its Deputy General Manage_I'».~~
3 The Kazmataka Stat;
Financial Corporation T
Branch Office " _
C R S Complex, near KSR'P(§"»
Bus Stand, M Y3} Road __
Kola: Representedhy its; " . _ .
Deputy General Man£1g¢1r_ if 3 ' V
4 Sim. Vijayalakshmi V
W/0 Lashménarewa-na 1
Aged abtigul years _ "
133/ 0 Kt1i1;i;af1M;:~§;_V V '
Maluf.TV0"_m;>V' ._ , t
Dis11'iCt'i:.F'a'n 130" V v ...Rcspoz1dcnj:s
(By Advocate for R1 to R3;
A « Sri Ra',.riv.:=:jV1':n'eL'u:_\ix33a*:ix-, Senior Counsel for
H _So1;1eze,;I'y:kaxa, Advocate for R4)
W1:itl7A'§fifiu11Vis filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
_Ccns*£itu_tit3:1 of India, praying to direct the respondents to
t1'ansfer"v..' fbgzéy hand bearing Sy.No.'?9f3 and 80/2 of
-Maiur Taluk, measuring 2 Acme; (31 Guntas,
the hililqiinggj plant and machinery located thereon of Mfg
2 Math; Bxj_i'ci:s favow: 01' thr: petitioner.
_ Pcfifisdn No. 3719 of 2&8
' ' W TEEN:
Singh
--W 3/0 Ba1ajiSingh
Aged about 54 yuan:
R] 0 Chokkand annhafli
M3111: Taluk 'I
Koiar District
AND:
(By Sn'. B N Prasad, Advoc:atc)h_ "'-.,:. A
The Kamataka State
Financial Corporatien
Having its Head. Offme
At Thimmaiah Road, No.1/KI
Bangalore --«~ 5360 052
nepnzscated ' ._ . V
By its Managing
The Karnataita St2;i£"' * . 'A
At Rmd;~--fE5%o';'1.! A},
*
1*apiése3.1t:;d V ' "
Fig its _E3£ém:tj_vi':.Af)1}:ye(:!1__'>:". j The' K§r.aata"i:a '*~ é ' V. ' Rural Zane .% Churi:h*--S£mct ' ----- S60 00 I ' % k ~r¢21£t¥'a-éiated 3 General Bj.
X The Kamamka smm Pjfiancial (imputation Brafich Ofiice AA ' ._C R 3 Complex, near KSRTC V' * __Bus Stand, M B Rand.
Koiar -~ {"3-63 101 Represented by in Asst. General Manager S Smt. Vijayaiakshmi W/o Lashminarayana Agsd about 45 years R/so Kumbarpet MaIurTawn ' * A Kolar Distzict - 563 130 A ~ (By S123 s G Pmdit. tc'r:{r R1 £4:-V Sri Ravivaxmaimmar,' Couzaercl-Zfor} S11 K H This Writ Petition is ui1dcr~ A.'ficJps 226 and 227 of the Constitution of 'to quash the letter/endorsement detail. _ issued by tho:
mspondcnt-4 V1T¥.!.!'i''j\i;!11(:)§;tllI'._%"R.i - animus this day, the Court made €336-':!b§}awii1g:.V 'a The W.P.No.3392/X107 swcing a '(if the respondents to @1221' the No. 79/3 and 80/22 of Chokkacndhaili Malta'-
2 acnés 1 gunta, the building, plmit and ' _ macizirlaxjr; thtzreen of M13. Matm Bricks in favour of W.P.No. 37'19[2% is filed sec-.&g a writ of VA quaahing the letter/endorsement dateci 28.5.2007 i by the fourth respondent.
2. The facts in bxicfam as under :--
The first mapondcnt-Karnataka State Corporation gantnd a loan to the fourth _ vijayaxakahmi for establishment of a brick am name and style 'Mathru Bxzicks' at cxf Rs.l5,40,00()/- was sancfionad aséa t1ié;= *' fourth respondent fie fif_R&'é;6iQ$ bI' was' the amount which was Bot fourth mspondcnt. The third Station 29 of thc State u possesaim (If the land, 'smiamg amps to bring the xfiadc m ofier to pumhme the said aim wire her oonamt seven cheques in all mounting tifi'-!_'x'u3;;.' on Canam mug, Banplme. Afi the mmeiom, the third %dcnt to the petitioner' dated 26.5.2005 caihng' V . ' the paymt and also smiled in the smki is canoened and the amount pend.' by the 'm-eluding mm is fozimitcd. 121%, the petitioner the third respondent, paid a 81131: of Rs.1?,45,000/-- which is the mam': due and payable to the third Imtpondent. In fact the fiourth resfldent dso Iejijuszested the tram respondent to oolkact the aforesaid from the petitioner and transfer the pmpelty mlease all collateral security mt! '4-'fit thereafter disputes have _k and the petitioner. The dated 1 1.8.2006 to the etattng thatthe fourth respondent intends rtmzn { °WI1, she wit! pay between her and the petition' ' es By them. Because of the smfi letter the ui{SI4'(}, receive the amount finm the the sale deed in favour of the V. now submitted that the fourth Iespon®nt has of Rs.19,12,700[-. It is under these _ petitioner has nached this Court fan' the " t 5 ' exams.
H3. Fxmn the aromsansd material it is clear the fourth teapczmdetnt had boznmwed money from the third mspondent. Whm the fourth respondent committed default in repaying the amount, third mspondexlt invoked its power of the SFC Act and took symbolic .. 9» At this 3133 the pctitiom-.1' as ' appmachcd the KSFC'. "s:j;j1::.a7 Rs.9,57,000/- as the mnsmmaaéjjmr of mg property "m question. Véchoquas it was bounced. It is the fourth mapondent paid a sum of Rs.17,45,00€}] aclcnarwledfl. But arm the amen bctwecn petitioner the on acommt ofwhich third mspondent is the sake deed.
right under a contract. It is a 4Vti.3rté_:..;1ctit;ioner and the fourth mapondcnt to the third imp-ondent is not a party. it in pursuance of the said contract the th'mi 5 mcczived the amounts from the pctitiencsr for and on fimth respondent. It '3 because of the disputes pleading their inability in execute the stair: deed and tfthey wanted the parties to resolve the dispute mimmy or in a tL/ Court of law in a znanncr known to law. In relief sought in this pctitian is a pcrfixrmance. It is settled T appmachca a Civil Court for at' *' cstablishca his right in all mg to} grant deem: for speciflf 20 of the specific Rciicf Act. it rclicf. In its disczretian the However, the said ::'§§rb£i1*a:y, but sound and reasonable, isy; t pan'-miizalm and capable of oonrectian 3 Unétlcr these circumstances I am of the it for this Court to gzjant a for ptnformancc in ctxmcisc of its power Artur. ' the Gonstituticm of India. The question justificafion for the E-urth respondent to backim Ishi' undcr what cfimumatamxs me fourth W " 'T into a contract with the petitioner for sake of , whether the fourth respondent is entitled' to the Court not in grant doors: for specie' pctfoai all matters which require to be decided by a compcmnt. C11 ' Court on the basis of the evidcnoc to be parties. In that View of the matter, parties intact, without deciding of daem it proper to direct the: pjartiesafi) C1v1I' ' Court for enibmcmcnt of then' --
the time spent: during that dmuld not be held against the war: to file a suit for specifiq the daze of receipt ofa fig; ahan decide the rights of theiv aooonimcc with law, without: go'mg fizf limitation, dclay or latches. No costs.
_____ 'Judge ' pk!'