High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri Raghuchandra S/O Late C A … vs M/S Maharashtra Apex Corporation … on 17 October, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Sri Raghuchandra S/O Late C A … vs M/S Maharashtra Apex Corporation … on 17 October, 2008
Author: A.S.Bopanna
'"n ,uBANTWAL 574235

« 5*--ER N L BALAKRISHNA

IN THE HIGH COURT or i<?\RNATAKA, 
DATED THIS THE 1?" DAY OF OCTOBE§:éé$S . 
BEFORE mHm4  "" t  x   
THE HON'BLE rm. JU3'1'1éE. (S 
w. P. no . 1 15 79%/zfgee (%aH%:?¢%;   

BETWEEN

.--.u-uua-nun-.--»------

1 SR1 RAGHUCHANDRA_s[O LAwE'c A RAMAPPA
AGED 45 YRS. ; '; _ <fi._' 1
NEKK:nAPuN;,'AL1KEL?osT._"-~=
AND VILLAGE, sANrwAL 574235»

2 MRS EADmAvfi:a1»f',"
D/0 LA?E.C A RAMAPPA _
35 Y£3, HU:1GApB£;~BA¥AR
K§SARGOD.DISTRIC$* ,

3 MR HARISHV ._ ,
;s/Q c A RAMAPPA
; 48 YRS, NEKKIDAPUNI
_' .,gLIKE VILLAGE AND POST
"~_BANTWAL'574235

a4 ,MISSfVEDAVATHI
'_ D/QHLA$E c A RAMAPPA
"45«yRs; NEKKIDAPUNI
ALIKE VILLAGE AND posr

3/0 C A RAMAPPA

35 YRS, NEKKIDAPUNI

ALIKE VILLAGE AND POST
BANTWAL 574235

REP BY GPA HZKDER

SR1 B MAHABALA POOJARY
S/O SHESHU POOJARY, 69 Y5

1%

'9:

 





R/O ARADHANA KANDET,
URWPL STORES, ASHOKNAGAR
MANGALORE TALUK,
DISTRICT ELK.

(By Sri G BALAKRISHNA SHASTRT, Asv;;; "T-."

AND

--..-......-.-n

1 M/S MAHARASHTRAUAPEX<CORPORRTION LIMITED

MANIPAL BY GPA--HQ3DER gv "fa *.

MR K GOPALAKRISHNA BEAT * _ T._ O

BY ITS PRESENT BRANCH'MWNAGER"K;'

AND GPA HOLDER MR C P DINESH;1 '

5/0 c p:K§auNAKAR;L" =_1«--m,
Ae£D_AaouTi53 YRS ", x"=f »
MANGALORETDAK3HINAx'KANNADR

2 MR BfK YA$EIsH?KUMARf .
s/o LATE KANTflAPPA"SHETTY
DRIVER C/0 K TaRAI~u"g .
AxsHARA,DaAAMA,"MAADnvU VILLAGE
TQ:PUTTUR; 913?, 0.x;

MR=fiMANATH Jo@1H.¢ .....

'v 520 LATE"MARAYAN JOGI
r'. AUTO.CONSU£TANT, s D sovzn

'_'CQMPoUwp;'xULAsH£KAR

~MRNGALGR£_3?5 005

3 ..  '  RESPONDENTS

Ij¢_(ey Sri A fianHUsvnANA RAG, ADV., FOR R1, R-2 5 3
*sERVED1_ “~

TRIO W.P. FILED PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER

‘7UTIW2;6.2oos IN EXECUTION CASE No.42/2002 on THE

FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, D.K.

‘=f*MA§GALoaE VIBE ANNEX.A.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRLY. HEARING IN

‘E’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING :

}

Vt

… parzribxské I

o”,_Qrdef as to costs.

fi$u%J

Court before taking further steps» in_ tfieo

matter.

4. In that View of tee métfefig toe ¢gd§:_
dated 2.6.2006 wh1ch* :g imp§gn¢a 7;n~m£hisoe
petition cannot sbe $oefiained ‘iosofar as
ordering attachmehe of ¢mm§§ab§§ pyoperties of
judgment debtors ~3ej:oeo?[ ooieh§ same is
according}?% gfiesoeoit Tee Eeeofiting Court is
directed etgeoegfiégdeg’~£fi§ }§bjection of the

judgment deoeogs end ehereéfter proceed hdth

the matter ifi»aocofdanoeoQith law.

-~,_ 5;? gitn the ~above ———- observations and
direofiione{‘oefition stands disposed of. No

Ekifiu
Iuchge