Smt R S Gayathri vs The Chairman & Managing Director on 10 August, 2010

[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

Smt R S Gayathri vs The Chairman & Managing Director on 10 August, 2010

Bench: Ravi Malimath

IN THE HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA AT BAl\lG.4liLf:lRE
DATED THIS THE 10"' DAY OF AUGUSfT;'*2G.1'._§i}'V'«'  _
BEFORE i it
THE i-lON'BLE MR. JUSTICE  iMAL1lrv1A'TEi.c_%'ErTagt
WRIT PETETION NOS.S3?3'_9'--.-,3362C3-T.(.')iF 2oco9'E«ioGMt+EES) 
BETWEEN: g  J l  L
1. Smt:.R.S.Gayathrl  __ 
Aged about 24 years,-I V V
W/0 D.Tham.izhara.5'an--  
Resident_o'a"«!\lc)_';48,-f_2, 3»  "

Millers Ta.nk§Bti.;1d.F{Qa1d_,  
BangaE'orej=-. 560.. GS'2f;.-i *  

2. smt-;'Ra;.a'ILaksh3+n~e " 'V M
Aged gaboL}t/1.9 "yea'rTs,"v~---- ._ '
W/"Q R.Sadago.;3raVri'   _ 
Resicienti of ixEo."4.8/.1  i
Millers T.an"l< .Bt;nl<-._Ro~~ad,
gﬁangalore ..--_56O G52.

     ----------   PETITIONERS

 I   -"Jayanthi, Advocate)

AND :

  1.Vcg'The~-Chairman & Managing Director

V M/s.Rural Electrification Corporation l_td.,
 Core-4, Scope Complex,
7, Locii Road,
New Delhi ~ 110 003.

2. The Registrar
R.C.M.C.Share Registry (P) Ltd.,

l/7/«M



1515, I Floor,

Bhishma Pithamaha Marg,
Near South Extension,
Deihi.

(By Sri.N.Udaya Kumar, Advocate for R1)

... RES   _

(Petition is dismissed against R2 vio'e"'C;O.ﬁ d4t.2:<?u.:6V:;1_.Ox)   V

These Writ Petitions are filed under Artipcies"226';a.ndV'

227 of the Constitution of'In'd.i.a pr'a\/ping to *d_i'rect-'the = L'

respondents to immediateiy effect a red_e'mp:tioi'1 of the

R.E.C.54 EC Capitai Gains Taxp.Ex_emp~t_ion Bond_s,VSeries--1V in favour of the petition__e'rs as' detailed "in Armexure--B, and also make immediate pa'ymen't_off the'dfix.rid--e_nd and interest payabie to the petitioners'_L':n_de,r the Foorids and etc. These. P_et'iti:Q.nisr..._ conifing for Preiimiriary Hearing in' _V'Bf__ 'group _ this 'd.ay,} the Court made the f0iiowin.g.:.=._A U ' petitioner seeks for a writ of mandamus to direct _rVes,ponde"nts to effect redemption of the bonds of the 13%'.i'E'rSDV|E)f'iij"€_F|Vt:tVC:Oi'pO3'EitiOn.

" It is contented that the petitioner being a norninee of the deceased Kuppu Swamy is entitled to if "receive the said payment. WK' thispietvition.

3. One Shri.K.Rajaiah has filed a suit in O.S.No.25660/2007 in the Court or 13"' Adaitionai,-.city Civil Judge, Mayo Hall, Bangalore for a deereeif.,:of.. permanent injunction. In the said suit, orders" "

and 2 have been passed directing:-the'~p.a'rt.,iAes_.V.to'V:rnaintain"5 status quo among other directior'i«s_ :'it\ih'icE'il"'ir.iAciu.des' bonds herein.

4. Learned Cou4'nse'l' the respondent No.1 contends_,,tha:t'*-theigsubject.rna'tteVrV'haying been seized by the City',__t'h_e"'._:other proceedings that having :'bee_n as release of said bonds are concerned,'--.thie_ not entitled for any reiief in A.,.,,ﬁ,.ﬂ..,Adn1'i'ttedIy, the suit has been fiied with regard

--V to the gveyrysame subject matter of this petition. By virtue it 'igof the preserit petition, a mandamus is sought for to direct

-- thellrelease of payment whereas the suit is fiied seeking to "restrain the payment. In view of disputed facts, it is highly inappropriate to grant the reiief prayed for. tie

6. The petitioner is at liberty to agitate the.ir'..|'dég.a| rights in the suit. I find no good reasons to ent'e'rtadVi_n'._j:ti5i_«V5"

petition.

7. For the aforesaid r.eason;:,, 'the petiti.o_n b_§3in'g__"'~., devoid of merits is rejected.

EDS

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court