Icds Ltd vs B Mahabala Shetty on 17 July, 2009

[Cites 1, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

Icds Ltd vs B Mahabala Shetty on 17 July, 2009

Bench: S.N.Satyanarayana

-1-

IN THE HIGH comm' OF KARNATAKA AT   ' 

DATED 'I'HiS THE 17"! DAY 01?  V  1% ' %L

BEFORE 

THE H€)N'BLE MR.JUSTIQE s.N'.'sA'E*s?ANA§§;;YAAN'A"  

R.S.A.N0.939 ['2Q_9_§V. '

{CD3 Limited, ., 

A Company   _  '

under the pmvisi-sans ofthc _,   V _  
Companies A¢t;_19§58, ,   _  " 
Having its nsigd. Qﬁa':'e'-;.._at   _  _  .. '
Syndicate Hozxstg  .. 

Replay i1sV'G311é;ral Pz;vwer«of--. "
Attorna;-:37 Holdé:7,'._-V    _ .--
sri.K.Ba3a1:2ish*-aaa'Ra;J;   _  Appenant

(by S1i,T.N.EF<a§§hv;1p%at:hj;v~:V_ 

 *1.'  V%ssi;a;M5nabam Shctty,

 S <2 .Bog1*a Shetty,
" Rig mama Gckula House,

 V' ,
Sixatwai '1' uq,

 A.  anaPesL
V' .5{).K.

VA    B.Narayana Shetty,

Since deceased by L] R
Smt. Nalini M Shctty,
Aged about 50 yrs.,



13)

Rla Adaxsha Nivas,

Battagudde, Bejai,
Mangalom.

M.Vinod
since deceased by LRS.

Smtvijaya,

Major, W/0 M.Vinod
Residing near
Mangaladcvi Tempie,
Bolar, Mangabm.

Smt.Rajeshwari,  

D] o M.Vinod
Residing near

MangaLadeviVTemp}e,-  if V

13012:,  
Mrs.s:i?m1' 
_ .,
Re'siciin"gnear 1"; '

 '  ., ' '

   

 Respondents

(by   Adv for R 1

V  is ﬁled 11/8 100 of CPC against the
18.7.2003 passed in

V?  3--a, 34:: grid 4 m.,)

;§i1dg1*;;ei:1i'v dated.

RA;N<5;17/ 2(}€)§_1.5'(okl RA.No.10/96) on the file of the District
Judge, Udugxi-,' akwing the appeal and setting aside the

 ' Cju¢:ime::.1t7.. and decree dated 313.1996 mmed in
" " ~   c;s.r+1¢. 18!)]89 on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr.I)n), Udupi.

~      Appeal coming on for hearing this day, the ccurt
*  cieiivcmd the follawing:



JUDGMENT

This second appeal is ﬁled by the the judmcnt and decree RA.No.17/2001 on the ﬁle of the judgment and decmc 31."7;-1996 S in OS.No.180/1989 on the E1; of Acivii%VJ:x%dge;, uaﬁpi, ﬁx. was reversed.

2. ii':-£331 appeal am that the appell.-e_1H11vt in the original suit. The 1" ~ the guarantor for the hire punchase the plainﬁﬂ and the 1st dcfen<§;a11t,.w114£> thc pcndency of this proceeding his kgal representative, the 2"' Smt.Nalini M.Shctty. in the saﬂ h1'n:--

1311 defendant oommittw dcfauit in the hilt: charges. In that behaﬁ' a suit was for recovery of a sum of Rs.68,928.9O with interest

4..1'V'j gt'_24% p.a. from the date of suit i.¢., 7.7.1939 tin date of :."repaymc:ut. The said suit after eontest was decreed for Rs.62,065.5O with cost and inttzzrzst at 24'% fmm the date of MAE -4- suit till date of xealisation. Against which only "

respondent herein i.c., Sri.B.Mahaba1a Shetty, _ guarantor to the said. hire purchase " W regular appeal chaikmging the A' in the original suit. On contest, came to be allowed reversing j_1z.d@et:1_uf£T decree passed by the trial being by the same has ﬁled this the same.

3. in of notice only the 1"

Iespondezzt-Ve1i:Aie3:§eti;':'1:;:;:ppea4xan f ce.' " 21"' respondent who is the ma heir ~ eﬁginal bormwcr remained exparte. 45 who am the bgal heirs of _ exparte.

-214; , at the time of admissian this Court _wasA admit the same fran1m.g' the fo}bwn}' g ' é " 1 i" -- question of law:

'Whether the judgment and decree gazed by the 1"' appeiiate Court reversing the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and dismissing the suit of the appellant is perverse and arbitrary being '''*'1 contrary to law and material on record?"

5. Thereafter, when the mattezewas at" pf " " 'V ﬁnal arguments, the 1" 1espondenVtA,wk;'oe 11;:

came forwaré to settle the matfer % to pay the principal amount of by the trial Court on a gappeliaet shall receive the same in full his claim as against the so far as the interest against the 2*"

le£ei.,._m§%§eeetaﬁve of orignal hire purchase;

tV3._vTheLéppVeI3aj3t the said oﬁer. A joint memo Jghe 1; and 1" respondent to the said :of.the joint memo, the appeal as against the 155 ﬁitvas dismissed zeooxtiing full satisfaction of against the 1" respondent in fail and final ;s.e§u¢m¢n£ of all the claim of appeﬂant receiving the amount as decreed by the trial Court. In the light ""this settlement the appellant herein is entitied to receive

- 5 _ only the interest from 2°' respondent, which was awarded to it by the trial Court from the date of suit ﬁll paymexﬁgf the decxcctal amount.

7. It is seen that the 1°' defendant, the V' purchaser who was alive at the ﬁmz:-of in the orig:m' al suit, did not choose £9 agaj ﬁcﬁgc passed against him. It is 15*" rg:s;)9i1§1«Ar:ii;tV"'}as1éin who challenged the saxqe "tI:1é' ..app$al the decree '$123' th §; 1'3 Court.

arrived at between the appellant Vievéyaiiﬁidcnt, the judgment and decree V. the 1§"1*espondent in RA.No.1{)/1996 is set aside az::1<i"€he in orignal suit is conﬁrmed. The 1"

has pend' the puma' 'pa1 amount, which is 'V appellant in fuli and ﬁnal satzisfaction of its u 1" respondent only. In eﬁbct, the decree

-' by the trial Court is revived by setting aside the T juﬁgmcnt and deems pasmd in tlac regular appeal.

9. In View the joint memo between the appcllantitnd 1-: xespondcnt, the appeal does not "

consiicratixm as against the I" respondent and §1ev of the trial' Court hem' g revived' sa:.z§:i\}*4:_s:vvVf§§r consideration in this appeal, ' "

question of law which was "at thzé ﬁrne of this appeal. Thmrom, the«.."~appea1' ﬁby the appellant challenging the; passed by the 18* appellatr; "considc:ration. Hence, the C ' Se'I/-n Tudge

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court