~. ' """
' " ~ Karnataka
2. "[;he:Lega,1 Manager
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 1()*~h DAY OF NOVEMBER 20
BEFORE E t 1'
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE s.N.sATYAI§Ai1z§YAIx:§ % ' '
WRIT PETITION NO26974 cVjE2O'09 t£}M>C.AF)x "
WRIT PETITION NO26973 OF..20--09 {GM_'-:CAAF}
WZP. NO26974 OF 2009
BETWEEN _ '
Sri.B.K. }\TiraI1}an£:KIIIrna1". V
8/ 0. Late Kalaiah ~ --
Aged About 4;3':Ye1a.rs, ' I ._ ._ "
Working At -Uvnited' Bank Of India' I
59 / 62;, DharIi'1I'ZF8,]'V8I"KOii'VSt1f_€€t, _'
Shivajinagar BraiI.ehI.A _ V' .
Banga10fe,--56000.1 V * " Petitioner
(By BB. Sda§a..BhaIikér P, Adv.)
. _ T.IIe-*'Secretary To Government
. ""CO"(')}3':tf_F€E'[i0fl Department, a
GQ__verm'nent Of Karnataka
; /s. Sriram Chits Bangalore [Pvt Ltd}
'""'\
No.38/ 3, {st Floor,
Lakshmi Complex,
Lalbagh Road,
Bangalore - 27
3. The Senior Inspector Of
Co-Operative Societies A. '
Office Of The Joint Registrar Of 'C04,
Operative Societies And Chits
G.M.C.Bank Building, " "
P.M.K.Road,
Chamarajpet,
Banga1ore-l8
4. Smt.D.ShaI1tharn1na~._"= V V
W/o. B.K_,Ni1far1jan:; Kama; ' *
Assistar1t_.Teac'h.er, ' S V
G.H.l-?.:S. f'_iod'd'a'L;ele-,3
Banga.lQre».D;tst. ' ' '
5. Sri.M.Meghanathar1 _
S/'O Late Mu.niswarn3(_ _
Daftry 'Union Bank Of Tn'dia
59 / 62;, _Dl1ari11_arajanE§..oil Street,
;Shivajinagar," " V"
v»~'~§Bar1ga1ore ¥'~53_ _____ Respondents
‘ Mariyappa For R2, Adv.
A Sri_r..Vecrabhadrai.aha, Adv. for R4
Sri.”–R.B. ‘Satyanarayana Singh, HCGP for R1, R3}
Ti5,.is’\K:’rit Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of
the Constitution Of India praying to set aside the order
dt:f38.10.06, passed by the respondent No.1, in Chit Appeal
” /33 CAP/05 produced at Annexure — A.
“W1
3; ‘ ‘=»’1’he’ Senior’ Inspector
AA ‘ 4_ Gr.M.C.BaI1k Building,
W.P. NO26973 OF 2009 (GM–CAF}:
BETVVEEN
Sri B K Niranjan Kumar
S/o. Late Kalajah
Aged About 43 Years,
Working At.Unite(.1 Bank Of India ” ” ” n 3
59/62, Dharmaraja Koii Street,
Shivajinagar Branch. V’ _
Banga.Iore–560001 _ Petitioner
(By Sri. Udaya shankar ”
AND -T
1. State of _
Rep Byéfme See_£e’tary To Go»iern1nen.t
C0–Op5erat-.i’o;1 ‘ De;),aft.::net’1.f-. . ‘
Go_\_remme1:t vKa_;’r1§Lta.ka__ V
2. Theyegal Ma.r1a:ger
M / S Sriram Chit:-3 ‘Ba._i’1ga1ore (Pvt Ltd}
..N1o,38/3,…IS’I’Floor,
‘lakshflfi Cfimnlexs
A La’1’bagi1¢Road,
V’ *~ 2 Ba’riga;1Qi*e-.27
Of C~n_–L(_”?»perative Societies
‘ Qffiee Of The Joint Registrar Of Co-
Operative Societies And Chits
V _ }P’.M.K.Road,
Chamarajpet,
Banga1ore~ 1 8
4. Smt.D.Shanthamma
W/o B.K.Niranja}:1 Kumar
Assistant Teacher, I _
G.H.P.S. Doddabele v. ”
Bangaiore Dist. … ” r A. ijf
(By Sri.D Lourdu Mariyappa 1-v”&)ra4–..132, Aavif
Sri. RB. Satyanarayana Singh,”*HV
“op for=R_1;«R’3) it it
This Writ Petition” filediiuiiderjfi-rticlesi V226Vv&: 22′? of
the Constitution Of In’diap.prfayir1g spent-., aside the order
dt.28.10.06, passed by respoifident’ No,__1.; in chit appeal
NO.CMW/34 CAP/Q5, giirodu-rjeri
These «Wri_t léorrfiiigton foriprelirninary hearing
in ‘B’ Group this’ day; = i,he'{‘ZVo maijle “the following:
. . ‘ . ., ., V»
‘l;Ahe’petitioner~.h.erein:’..is impugning the order dated
28.1Q.200€i°passsd– by first respondent in Chit Appeal
V’ ._ No’-.biVI’aZV/ CAI;/’U’5″‘Vide Armexure — A.
._ 2’; :”*«_pyv1_eiAV!:3:’r1ef facts leading to these Writ Petitions are as
under: i ‘
is The petitioner herein is the husband of fourth
“respondent. Fourth respondent borrowed rnoney from the
“”‘\
second respondent — Chit company in the year
petitioner herein who is an employee of a Natio{iailised–. ~
as well as the fifth respondent are guarantors’
loan. For non–payment of the loan ainol:.ir1t{proceedin,§s,”iwe1?e_’
initiated by 2″‘ respondent’ll_before–lthe ,3′”dplre§5vpond3ent,
wherein an award was passed f_or”‘reco.yery.”of same from
petitioner and respondeiats 4} which appeals
were filed by the pet,itie.ner ‘-beforle”‘v_ ‘lfii respondent
appellate
3,, ‘petitioner is that the appeals
pendinlVg_AbeI’oreV the-“res’po11dent are disposed of exparte
without notice ° also his case that when the
matterlvwars pendi_ng before the first respondent, his counsel
ldied: ttiiereafter without any notice to the petitioner the
of, which was not within his knowledge.
Admittedly, the impugned order is passed on
and present Writ Petitions are filed on
2O?l,O9Al.2009 i.e., after a lapse of nearly two years, four
I./1.4:
” notiice hivlmpcannoltllbe accepted.
months. No sufficient reason is given by the petitioner for
such inordinate delay in filing the Writ Petitions.
5. Further, in View of the subrnissionsiriiade”*by—-:tl”iel ~
petitioner that there was no notice t0..h.,i_n;1, this ycoltliftlldiireoted it it
the first respondent to secure the ‘records’ p’eyta:§i1ng[£e_£i:¢
Chit Appeals pending before iirst lrespon,deht;~.:.wh.ere3 it L’
clearly seen the notice regarding’ date of of the
appeals was sent to the”pe’titi0_ne%r’as his counsel.
6. Under’«th”_is contention taken by
the petitioner t_hat”tiie iappeal-s__ ;a;:e’* disposed of without notice
to him and’ the in the said chit appeals is an
exparte_()1’der».,g_jr1ci’1 that “the order of dismissal is without
I
* –isA’e:=a1so seen that since the date of disbursement
‘V of the in the year 1998, the fourth respondent who is
tire of the petitioner has not paid any amount towards
‘said loan and the petitioner being her husband and
‘W?
_7
guarantor has also not repaid the ioan. The petitioner
an Officer of a Natiorialised Bank would”;— ~
responsibility of borrower and ..gu_aran*torV”‘ Vdprornpt K”
repayment of the loan. When he”:.hiifnself}’haS*
defauit, the question of giving–._any”A1=eiief ‘E(}’t,i1’i’iAi’V11–»…iV;]
proceedings does not arise.
8. In any View of” the .matie1f, thae:1e’iis_ no merit in the
Writ Petitions filed peititioriér. “[f%€:vi’1:’E’;’.fi§,v.)E’1fi'[€’ same are
dismissed, without ‘any— .or€1e–.1_f as-..tfo_ ‘