Vijayalakshmi vs Karnataka State Finance Corporation on 1 April, 2008

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Vijayalakshmi vs Karnataka State Finance Corporation on 1 April, 2008

Bench: A.S.Bopanna

IN THE HIGH coum on KAR' NATAKA AT  I    *

DATED THIS THE 18? DAY-0F»APRfLH      

BEFORE  A   0 
THE HOPPBLE MR. A"3__B9?1§.!§l€A"' 

no-r

   

tn tuinu Atnzutln    V
FIIVII - .' '-

V] r
W OCHANDRAMNPH H _ V V  
-GED l?\'l3()'|JTV'?!'O'!'El¢iR?3p   _  ' 
',HOUSEHO'LD,'*».»~-:-_V _   " ' '
/'t'\"i" CHOW E';Af:ii;'1i1'ﬁﬁ" E5i:';_E'ﬁi:'i, " 
ESIDE. 0§2?IV'l_'AL_,V , ' 
' 7 -iﬁj , $'z~§'ig&x'3iGﬁ_'ﬁi"'i'..  H-'i'iGﬁER

E
g:
2::
-I
in

" V'  - A 1"  KAHNATAKH S'rA*fE FINANGE CORPORATION

» _ No..1,r1;THIMMAiAHR- Rom.
.. ' - B1'-NQM-ORE 52.
* '.  R'EP,~v_.._B;Y.:l:'}'B MANAGING nmmcron.

 THE  GENERAL MANAGER
..K&NA'I'AKA srrma mamas conroamon
DEVARAJ UR3 COMPLESX, M '

   *   cop: CIRCLE, snmom 577 201
   THE SPEGIALTAHSILDAR

KARNATAKA S'!-'ATE FINANCE CORPORATION.
DAVANAGERE DIVISIONAL OFFICE '

S NIJALINGAPPA-BADAVANE

DAVANAGERE 577001

}z

'0



4 RAFFIUDDIN
s,/0 MIRA SHABUDDIN,
MAJOR, RA!-IAMANIA BLDG... J  _
.3 1-! ROAD,  Town, ' "

smmooa ms'r--577 201    l€5l9Plc:mlDE:ﬂTS

(By Sri: B RUDRAGOWDA, ADV.=F'QR Rl"T§l3l

"mus WRIT PE'l'I'l'l,ON is me UNDl§R.KRT'lCI;ES§26 a.

227 0;? THE cousrrruzuon oE.e.e1;§=2LA;--., w1'm A.,_?RAYER TO:
DECLARE THAT THE saw: HELD ~51: PUBLIC AUCTION on
15.2.2095 3? THE   IMMQVABLE
PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER  CQNSISTIHG 2 FLOORS
MEASURING 10  19 s:1¥..wr5:.r>  S..'§Q.A.l€  S!-!!!.£QG_A
DISTRICYI', as !§lIJ--l,L'--ANl1{_VOlD,:lLLEGA_L Arm ARBITRARY. THE
.49.,-c*r:o:-.' HOTICE  #.av}£':;e.& err-9, PRQBLJCED as  :.--.

"i"his   hea1'ii"rg, *...=.a=- day', the
Court madeithe follgwving  *

-.l1_'    this Count seeking for the

V'   . an appmpriate write OR direction
"--  declaring: that the sale held in public auction
on '15.«-22005 by the 3N1 respondent in respect'

'~_z'}fA'+hn it-nrnntnahln Q! }'_1gt1:Hl"Il'II".l' .HIl\l I-IIIIII\I"IﬂgIII\f Pl. 'Ilrf IloVreI-u--- ll cenaiating 2 floors measuring 10' X 10' situated at Sager Town, Shimoga. Diatrict an nell and void illegal and arbitrary. bl -sue a wt of mandamus to the respondents 1 as 2 to consider the request of I > u the petitioner for one time settlement as per" V ihe repreeentatioﬁ dated -'25.oi.ms i;.i_f"u'ti"i~TH".j:'.. A e

c) Ieeue any other appropriate ., _ direction as this Hon'ble7Court fit the facts and of case' &:f1"ti1e V e!':r.1t_Ir.1f_§!;!|.ti.¢.!I.H.3.!!d,;!!q,I_I.i.!_t_I,r, ' l "

C1) Pace ouch othe::_'§.4:itaible§V- am this I-Ion'ble Court deemea' iii :i'ihe,_lllaiie:ic1ant oiroumata;1oes,__of the'oaae," V' V'

2. is that she had and sale of automobile spams iii itie Automobiles' at Sugar a.1...£ J... i,:.. ........1 4... 1...... ....................t......: n... n.....4. Luc. G1 my Eu In new upy1\JIII..:ucu tut: nun. Stain V' for loan and the first respondent atlier ooﬁeﬂerihg the eligibility advanced the loan of Re.2,95',*(l00/-. The said loan was advanced in the year ll 1991} Though the petitioner claims that she was regular in

-mfepayment of the loan initially. from the year 1994-95 she loss in bueaa due to business omnhlg 5:

up in the surmundh _g and themfon: there was payment of the amount. In 'V contends that she approached fer by way of ~ A _ petitioner, ﬂaerejargna between the pe1i1ioJ;_texi. repayment. The the xsnc had called __debtnra in the am and certain suggestziens: 1139111 to the aettlement of " It the peﬁtloener claims, by the e....'_ ...._ _..

I ﬁner I-I-nu urn-n 11 Dc 0'? fUH'\I... I-an-Int-11 I.I..Ii».u .,"--ll I-«LII-I IUI-I-III Ilul J\H'luﬂII' [I]!-III' iIul'UI'1I$II§l aei:ti_ement.tii'Athe loan by way of ins" . the claim that the said amount hm been paid, the produced an Annemne --G to the petition is only In ' tune of Ra.l3.000[-. However. ultimately though the petitioner wee interested in settling the claim of the met 1 3:

respondent due to her ﬁnancial diﬂicult1ea' . ' neeep up the schedule, but kt respondent to aooomlnodam the _ under the one time " V L' an --r-----. _ vv 11:. mud.-ant '|-lihm t_|_1_ia mt I-nu'.-....u?'i.5 gdnl I-inning:-n-I-nuns. an Can the petitioner for on i6.:'3.:'26t"x'5. In this ee. on 7.2.2005. The ma noﬁﬁw um i. an mm __ - ' ' 'V3,. lrttmv ﬁtarhha mspondt is oonemnad, with . t " Etéj and the: amount in be claimed' 1' an turn: I!' nnil ﬁll iv a Q"-la I.-DJ,' '£.'l.vlvvL'II: -'?IV'--l|-I'll'!-ul' u-1.:-an .l'_.__IA___I peﬁtiaﬁzar ""3 dezamwu in same had attnctnd intcmat mguiariy, the amount by the petitioner had mounted and afmcc the ' did not take amps to liquidate the loan. the limit repondentwaafomedtopmeecdﬁxrthertohavethe I J2 7- property sold and meme. 1- the amount in this State Financial Corporations, in cert1lica' te of recovery as eontemplategj .V ._ Public Moneys (Reocwmy of * T' A t":'ruu-nl-:1-11-I'\I' Ilc [Ill EuIuI\l'lI.' § lIJ\JIIVI.ll,-

----v m .-,.---..a-..¢igs.-.1 Q:-.ea.".-. L-ft n-.'-ma.-.-: _.'_.___--_ LI. _ _.._ ____..A. ' IZIIBBIIIUIIIII and the notice dated t 'V of auction an 15.2.2eo5,V% is said to have 1'espoIi4__1ed_ notice and had taken part in the respondent oﬁemed a sum of Rs."1_;,63,(J0O4_) in question md the said price 1; nesnnndmt, .;.,...... e... ., .....V.,r....... .__, ...... __ .....r_.........

fie'. ' be'nnn"oi' the fourth Ieaponaient. it in con' " 'II:nueu" " " ' respondent is a bonaﬁie purchaser pursuant auction noﬁce and the fourth Ieepondent had . 25% of the bid amount on 17.2.2005 as directed by the respondents and the balance of the amount had been i L '0 paid' within 15 days as mquned' under the themefoxe contended on hehalfof 2 even though 25% of the amoltht mama' the mepantlenm VtI::1e"tﬁitlIth t t respond"-at m t'.e3.--..-.-a.*t§.t d the amount was deftoaitraﬁ as ﬁiwaﬁertt is entitled to the in the auction. of the fourth respontleat Vim-tgulazities, it 'u only due Ia':the._ Nos.l to 3 and lhezefme, assumsngttut tltrfthdtlt if one Court comes to the ootttgtustgn llzhavtuthe tiale made was the fburth l' to such intmeat or

-'tr---='-"--V-?"~ the '='---'--"** demsit-:".. by *....1-- lb-.::'*..h 'llCi' Iespontjlenth lying with the respondents Fe'rvnIauy""--' 20O5..oz§wa1da. on behalf of the respondents, it is also that even if the petitioner alleges irregularities . regard to the sale, there is an alternate remedy available under the Kamatalca Land Revenue Act J3! ('the KLR Act' for abort) and as such the V' regard to the same cannot be put fforth by this petition.

1 hi-nrta. se

-:--uur-up "v'.nmmau"""'"'*. ieai*iieri the peti't.iu'Tx':-". Sri rteet to 3 and Sri respondent No.4.

-niasueattwthave been raised by the leamed with xcgmvd to the dues petitioner. the manner in which . the that respondent for one "!]pi|.a__ent_:~~n'l'|l'I nlun 9 In guunnﬂii it IIhlID'E"lﬁ:l'|tilI nf I-Iulﬁﬁie ,I.I.5.'vl-In V M I-III:-Ier Itllau In union-HI-I It-n airtétirtﬁi by the ﬁﬁt , t'rney'" are are ultimately the realm of' the fiat V.':x.AAru':«ﬁtIjt:i;;ndt and the petitioner with Jegani to the settlement % one time settlement scheme, ifit is available with the ﬁmtreapondentandalaothemnnnerinwhichtheamountie 1 it to be settled m- o in any event, the loan committed by the pctilxn1e' r is not am « ' £1313' 'ﬁn K u what is contended by the uuifemed by her, the loan mmdneannbe in n A the-.. 1!-..g.-=..v:!, n me fist fea'1":6n¢'ient and if §ram'*-an", ea.-3 matter wouici in any the t them-elven» if tnltinlafely to the cnnciusbn that the sale was one more Imam: that-even the balance of the amount case settled by way of Ieeoluiian n

-LEJGIICJ I IJIIIUIIIQUII I p..3fei¥'-1-' &'...""... *1'-....-e V--v-Him... 4;.-rad. I e1..u_-1-; it _ __.:.I ...__.L.:__ .I_..1..I... ...-. AL}- I.lI.I IIIIH Wnliliﬁ ";"'=';'""'ff: ﬂ thtz Mun 1.31:: 'If: uuwue the matter since such pmcetimee looked into by this Courtinawritpmceedinga. +- 1 43'

7. Having' concluded en this aspect of valid-' rty' of the sale conducted by theece1eepondc ttc Rx 1'°¢llI!!I=s' cc be cc .» H ed in this _ 'it E - ll-I\l'I-IIIIJEICI-I I-I'll J'I"vurtvvsI'uJ- L__ _._ LI..__ . ,4 mg, gee; _+H_eA_e_-1;';.c.c' L.. '-n_;3.'_' ___;.u: __'I Act: In: IIISI IC3 [ 531 HRH qllln EIIC ' due: from 2 ttmapontiemt at- xeomrery has been auctioﬁ; the amount in terms of the For the purpose of recovery the the ncccvczy Act, the pmoedule . Land Revenue Act and II JIKKI-II-VI-%§\dlII.l V' #4-...!1...§.' ;..' _em........a 1... +1.- n.a..I .....-..-....A....+ In em.

-IH" ' V. ,V~I'I,.:I"'¥'I- II' 'I-I"? I-IS" -C. It oounaei 1705' the the pxcccauae as ccmempmed under Section 174 qfﬂle KLR not been renewed. shnnauy it is contended that ' the pmcedun: as contemplated underRule 124(0) ofthe KLRruleshaanotbeen£ollowed. 'l'he1efo1e,the1vewasno wide publicity' ' with' regard to the sale and 'V learned counsel for the petitioner, n u said rule baa resulted in prejudice .' not contended be urged by ﬁle ﬁling appeal hefme the that too in the runner as 1376 of the KLR Act. In so far as the juatiﬁeaﬁon is that the fourth d d to the notiﬁcation. and being ...}. ..._.. --... .. ._........ .... .. m1...._.:-....... 1.. .. l.'lﬁ'- b .113: 'I t 11 1 ''u''.:' 3- .I.uIu'til1'.Ilt= ll; the poaseaaion ofthe property-as purchaeerin the V' ' -- "_ aucfion.

I 3% aapeet, it is necesary in consider at " V' the petitioner should be ahut the gmund that then: is an as¢.~.#uo%n :75 9: mg KLR ? 1;; a would have "en-an ayfzmpria-.*mV ..... ﬁ............. in iii: an appea._i'aa'.: i7'6 of -t'r:e KLR Act an appeai and the wt forth i- vwvi-ied is also well aetﬂed that a

- v instant case, I am ofthe View that __ .. .__ _..._-.c,_ g t he mlcmted. to 3.1; 1:1:

I-Inﬂux    I-I-I-.    Olnin

  grievance was    to the manner

' the KSFC had proceeded with the auction which e been conducted mm' stthe pet:tioner_' . In this: peﬁtiann, anint1:1i1no1derhadbeengrantedi11favourot'thepe1itioner I IL '1 on 22.3.2005 which was no doubt a .e;yf ofoonﬁrmation oftho me by the up A ' the petitioner depositing a hum of aspect, the respondents to = L' oonﬁnn the sale only bocauae - had not been the m-.__e 11.2.9!' I I E?

"-u.e- 'pa-t£'..%;-nee-,?ﬁ tfo.aiwtvaﬁice"ruo innit had

-96," ,,-,m- gay-::.@§: Vt; by this court. the instalmco gees The fact that the amount as by Court by way of intorhn onior the sale has taken place in not in V as it may, even assuming for a' moment ' n-4.... uniunu no at:

no i_ntI_=1:iI;n o_,.;-er @223. by *..l.-.$ 0.:-.r..-~t. t....:-. at up '-'-=.-.''. :........**--'-" th.-2 Ku"ﬁ"""""""" La-ud ""--'- C was in any event mquiroti in he ioiiowui hy the t respondent In tiaopmescnt capo. the of the Wpetitioncr is that such pmoodum has not been folbwed. As I I 1 "nu already noticed, in a nonnal circumstance, an ﬁled an appeal on 21.11.2005 but _ . was before this Courtami A " L'

4.':.._'_ . .i',...';--:,;-'jn.1.notvu: ......I V _ "aJlIvI"lW"J "Ill __;.:4.:___... 1...... ._-.4.I...I...._....._ PEIJIIDIIEI Ill'!!! wzmutuwu » !.l.I?-t'r' .A 1 the pmdency of ﬂaiar this is not a case where the peatasag: only on the ground of . rémgdy the totality of cximcumuianoca "helium .

o K-II VHMW IIIIIIUIJ ant lulwainw-I1-I 'l..__._ _.._._'.......I I._.l.'..._.. J.'I_.I.. hﬂiieaaunxulunz uclum I.uusC'uiiI't In this Court would have" to conmder' " the can-tuition ' ﬁn the other aspects also.

L sum -- -M-«Ha:-. that the =--m 4- h-an-«---

10. Though the learned counsel for contends that the petitioner has ' grounds even in the mnendrnent. wliat 7 is that the non-compliance of A"

mg the Rmee is is a *-ue"uc.-.'-. a }e.-..- -.-.'l-.*.t-.}.~.""it£ $3 a €.3e:I_r-t n._.i-I-;e in any event. the ﬁ'.i"-u-mu.-~, it in for the mm to md1ca' ' cm uetetl in aemnianoe I with __ .A this in the backslhtmd. the by the thin! respondent itwould have tobe analysed as to . of the pmviaions ofthe KLR Act _.n~_..u.__ A.I.... ......1- _ ' HIE "iii inthia regard, the me under 168 of the Emu:

pmperty is advertised' at: sale. the pmoedme is thereafter regulated from Section 174 anwmdtn In this I .6.

4 xegnrd, Section 174 ofthe KLR Act apeeiheeny % ;,,.m.;,,-etety the 25% of the bid é w1th1n' ' 15 days from the the sale wee 15.2.5555, fourth respondent. said 25% of the mnountt: _ fourth mupondcnt on wan hold on 26.23105, but the the of 15 days ae-

provision. The only queennn whether the degoait made on 17.2.2005 as a man'! in it-tn i-i.-.-J-.-3' as thetnntd would have to he in the " it has heen used. one erthe test to understand tine provision would be section 175 of the KLR Act itaoif, which 1 8:

indicates that if the amount in not contemplated under swam 174 ofthe A T " t should he put to resale folthwith. the moment the bidder is pumchaner in the auction, to be deposited smmeasaueiy which the om: pumlﬁ the amount. in had aepma 17.2.2005 man he was advised to tie. apw ma respondent who conducted the that the same in correct, the is ' to be followed by the Oﬂicerlthe tlurd' auction. Hence, the founh in nnnnni 'I-nu niunvn Isnnnﬁf gr I-I-in Ininfﬁhh Lﬁﬂlnluucvul '- '< IJIJ UIUIIJI IuI\l-I-IIutJ-II- £___I _ .l.'_1'I __..... LL- by the Whfl 5 in Iuuuw um Q'

12. The further contention of the zegatd to Rule 124(0) of the KLR i:2uiEa.not-i;

with. The pmvteo to clause (0) to provides that in cases where * V L' the hehee et in 1__ .. In Iéﬁilln in the that this with. Thu " ' them ie ethee aocotding to the petittoher not been given. Though the respondent contends that a ttf pmcedun: need not be interiered % «V.l::3t'ttl;~ifs'A~£'..'ouxtVunleV' as prejudice is shown, in the instant "east 39%:-rI___' ntnnnnt n|ni1na_u_!_ l_I_g_| r'h_-_l_ . - __I!.'_I_ ,ItHI'§. --u-«-.--u-nu----- ---_-._ IJI ueitm A '5 '-'-"-h hi'r;"tit*=1" than the E.l"i'.II.'?iiI.'ii'. cu".'t-ere"... '.33' ' Er ..1jr:%aponcient as the 'heat price aoooniing to the reapcndent. If there was wide publicity as contemplated ' therein, ifthere were more participants in the auction and if the property was sold for higher price. the liability of the 1 I5 petitioner would have come down and the * was rcqulrod' to be made would K " V petitioner. Thcnaftme. "m a petitioner is prejudiced for mam "

tr.» tn; more " ,4 been ,--'t.._ E L E :-

E F' ?

in ta.

oompiiad with broth: % an *.....hi- gmund. the 'bciausiairttéﬁ """" t IJl:IaI:"""".

mt nun t t in the ptnnen tonne bem' g tmdctr-Section 174 of the 5:13 Ant tnnnnn "124 of the KLR Rules cannot be t and in aootnutngly quashed. it is that since the sale is baing quashed aa{-,- %:'~ ef the ,r.-:1;-.r.=t.n'_lmi_ I_rr.u.:I,u"-i_u:.I;l__., it wouici be after: iiir the rt-aw-tn'!-t nit-5.1 tr. 3 $ ".::-'i:-.- to auction 'by complying with tin: pmoetium t under tnw. However, in the instant case. it in noticxadthatcvenaftnrtheaaleofthepropertyinsofarm I 12 '! the balance of the amoun. t wine' in was required' the petitioner, the that available with them which or? H.._'!J_'!a Q:,I:1.s.!Lt.!erin..g :L-._«-. .r --an-. a-hue,

-} " """""

it whaia aﬁii he     to mam an
appropriate    
for beneﬁt    scheme and if the
some   it would be
still    to consider as to whether

the petitioner is ehhénat same and if the matter is not 'respondents would have the option of In so far as the I will-'la i>v'i'!V' '_'&:I5'II'I""'I 1-nrnnuu-I-111' Inlfh I-an flan ﬂmiurfh IZIEIB1-ii'-I -.'I,LrsI-Iv-LI auuywuuuum -II-l"GIlvII nu I-«III! II-re-all-I A _____1. J.' '~14...-__. ._ 4. 1..-- pin. it» man Ci'-' I E?' .|._ ...._A.l_... -1.' LI.- IIJ Iﬂlll "I LIE as weii an the respondent Noemi to 3 and the that he having responded pursuant to the p dated 7.2.2005 and having deposited the sum of Rs.1,68,000/-- during February 2005, the loss caused to the _ L '.n fourth respondent is to be eompenaatod, the gone into in a Writ Petition of this Ltémsht ' x k this Court has comp to the the fourth respondent has . .: :it be apt-.;t ﬁmrth damages in an terzﬁa 91' %*.#..-.-.I. 1'18. of \Ifit1;" the and dimctions, the pcﬁtianLatand""" No ordcraatoooata. V' wtikclbms

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court