Smt Susheela vs Karnataka State Financial Corporation on 25 November, 2008

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Smt Susheela vs Karnataka State Financial Corporation on 25 November, 2008

Bench: Ram Mohan Reddy

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGA1.0R'*E

DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF NovEMaE1§2fz3t)é§%%%:'%.i '2.

BEFORE

THE HOWBLE MR. JUSTICE wxivz 4MQifIA§:"  
wrerr PE'FIT!Or€ NO. 6674 <5Fﬂ;°&%   (G&1~,§&f 

BETWEEN

SMT SUSHEELA  . 
w/0 KRISHNAMLERTHY V   
41 YRS, PARTNER Mis'K:mTAM3A RESORTS
SY No 4112, N H 2{)'6,_N!DI{GE*"~.,  _ 

SHIMOGA'   " ' -I  I «V "

   %
W] O4.KRIS§4i~N A_ __   .
36 "YRS, PARTNE--R  

. M] S 'KADA_hE:BAv_RE SOR'FS

"R/0 L16 .1510 69, HUDCO COLONY

 :1. S'1'TAGE, 'GGPALA

_sH.IMQ(3A

 'if{:'1Zh,,»}?}§£"§f:)UINA

W/'oi we was
34' ms, PARTNER

" . ws KADAMBA RESORTS

'22/0 HOUSE NO 701, 13 CROS
32 MAIN, I PHASE, J P NAGAR

 BANGALORE

C KRIS!-HIAMURTHY

SI 0 CHIKKEGOWDA

45 YRS, PARTNER M] S KADAMBARESORTS
SY NO 41/2, N H '.206

NIDIGE,SIr~IIMOGA

VI G was
s10 55 M was

55 ms, N0 701, upsmms

13 CROSS, 3 MAIN, 1 PHASE bk



J F' NAGAR, BANGALORE

6 M/S KADAMBA RESORTS
NO 41/2, N H 206
NIDIGE, SHIMOGA
BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER

(By Sxi: G s BALAGANGADHAR, Npv,-NAN A. T? 4'
85 L G LAKSHMEESH ;2Ao,A1>V.}__

AND :

KARNATAKA STATE FINANCIALCQRPQRATIONAA 
N0 1/ 1 THIMMAIAH ROAD --_ . "  
NEAR CANTONMENT RA1i_._wA*1, :s'm'1fIe_N,,  .
BANGALORE, BRANCH,Q_FF!CE_ AT DEVARM
URS COMME1?2(11AL_ CQ'MPLEX,4NF$H_RU ROAD

SEEN;€\PPA.A   'A3*.CiRI(3L__E: 1 I
SHIMO(}A.,_BY IT'SV"BRA]_'{C1I{ MANAGER

 

  _  RESPONDENT
(13y5r.:,I_s. r<i's:'«f{(_:,' 'sID.)"- 

V.  mls WRIT 'PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226

 '  22'? OPVTHE CONSFITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
 QfUAS§'}*TfiE"T~T_ENDER CUM NEGOTIATION NOTIFICATION

PU'£¥£LISI~iEI)  VIJAYA KARNATAKA KANNADA DAILY
NNWSRAEER' (PAGE No.9) DT.7.5.2006 AS PER ANN-A.

IITHIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY

 = I HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE

  SQEILOWING:

ORDER

The petitioners having defaulted in the matter of repayment of dams to the respondent --- Karnataka State Financial Corporatkm, the respondent invoked Section 29 of M _ .,'."9E--'ifITICN£R9;O: I "N the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 (for short ﬁat') to recover the monies due by issuing a notiﬁcafzioiz-.._4»titd. 07.05.2006, for salt of the properties bormwcrs, by way of tender-cum«I_n;Agqtiatif;t1;' = which is assailed in this writ pcﬁtién. . T1 '

2. It is admitted that theféspontient V loan for Rs.15,60,00€},I._- loan of Rs.6,00,000/« with a -31' eight years, in £avour'ofP»ﬁj partnership ﬂan of which the who, by way of security, mortgaggnhe1§ag§::;¢1§i..'nghts of the land and building of M; "-E3r,:,_<_._>._v_;:_':r13;s, while that 5*" petitioner oﬁemd his hc11se--,_ at Lakshmipura Extension, Kallahalli, H Shimoga City, as a collateral security. it is that the petitioners could not proﬁtably "m'.'i1_i.'scvvihc Hotel and Resort Imlustxy as a result of which suﬁcmd heavy Bosses and turned dcfaultcrs. it appears ' V' " the mspondent ﬁled Miscelhncous Peiitinn No.1/2005 befon: the District Judge, Shimoga invoking Sections 31(1)[a) and 31[1)(aa) of the Act to recover Rs.2?,62,632/ - by arxaigning the petitianers as party-reapondcnts therein. It is the assertion of th:: petitioners that during the pcndency of 36K 5 under Section 29 of the Act dtning the pendeneyVV'oi1"e.the proceedings under Section 31 of the _

3. The petition is opposed by""ﬁ1ingﬁo.o 511 VA undated Statement of objections , contending that the 3':11('i)' of' V L' the Act is to enforce the the. surety-whiile Section 29 is to recover the amounts due.

According of proceedings under from the borrowers are distﬁnot' initiation of pmceedm gs unda§.%%se¢tg§ﬁ'V»:{;§%1;om enforce liability of the suxety. What the by invoking Section 29 is the leazigﬂhoid atidteftee-'titold rights over the property hearing ,A I-2"-beIong'ng to the ﬁnn. Reliance is placed upon tie?}_isiot§""'.of a Division Bench of this Court in sonvsms PVT. I..'l'D., vs. Karo! wherein it to is_ he1ti that proceedings under Section 29 and 31(1)(aa) axe ' Vetrtigotj improper. in addition, it is stated that pursuant to the tzotiﬁcation Annexuze-'A' dated 7-542006, no action has been taken to hold the sale of the property. M 1 AIR 2003 KAI? 221 6

4. I-Iaviﬁg heard the kaanaed counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and examined the A11ncxu1t»"A", in my opinion, in the _ action the KSFC in invoking Section 29 of = .. properties of the ﬁrm, the dcfauilggr, either illegal or arbitrary so céiitvfor , not the case of the petitione:;VL"ﬁ.i;£at _ tho" involtm g Secﬁon 29 of the Vos by the respondent -- C-o133o1ab';ox;v;T' the matter, the notiﬁcation Am~.,¥,Lo~-i.,E,;gA» _;;-,a.n':nc.£::t§'é'*sa1d. to be illegal. Writ pctiticega is gaccomingty, rejected. It is open u the approach the KSFC, with nec<:s2.s;a13r the baiancc amounts due, and done é"iovrt111'ght from today, the respondent is the same, and pass appropriate orders Sd/_ Judge %% " 'Ks

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court