Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The appeal filed by the respondent~i's}o..S..t5eifore t.he'* 2nd respondent u/s 106(3) of the Societies Act 1959 has<'been 'ai_lowed.VT'i5Ir1e._"second,0' respondent by the order the appeal and the respondent dated 2.3.2009 V' ''.Therefore the petitionerf_a,1.i.c'tio;:rii_'-.1 Writ Petition No.23;6_90:/p the said order.

obtained a loan of Rs.lO la}{h.s..fr0rri4"thve4iih respondent Bank in the year 2001. 3l;he"t' ,5") respondent became a defaulter, the to auction and the petitioner herein the highest bidder in the public auction on 10.9.2008. The same came to be confirmed as per AnneXure-F in Award N02048/2003- dated 2.3.2009. The property in question is situated f in Sy.No.260/7A measuring 0.32 acres situated at Kodavur village, Udupi Taluk. The 5th respopnden1':~Vp.has taken a contention before the 2116 respondentjV'thatl property, which was auctioned,:"vi}as in order to discharge the decretal amount alpportiorall property should have been It'i.s_ that the adjoining property si:ti.ipate'rjt""1'V.n: Sold on 21.6.2008 for a the same, the 5"" respondent':%¢:étted='._beioi*e lfiiiflarespondent that the property Rs.51,5o,oo0/~ is very low- _theVlVlproperty ought to have been ~«. For this calculation, he placed reliance the yaluation report prepared by Sri .lV.""~Madha%faraya Consulting Engineer dated rid.'-further relied on the decision reported in AlR~._l99}0 so A i 19 (AMBATTI NARASAIAH v. SUBBARAO) ll."4'''-.lVlp''wherein--* : the Supreme Court has held that before Jaiictioning the property, the proper valuation should