M/S Mooka Basaveshwara Oil … vs The Karnataka State Financial on 17 December, 2008

BETW HEN;

" V'  é "'-SiRU{}E}"PfPA 'I'OWN,BELLARY DIS'I'RiC'"i'.

Ea)

Iii THE HIGH {EOURT OF KARHATAKA C1859?
AT DI'i&RWAD   

::zA'rE;:3 "I'I-iiS THE 17% DAY 02;'  _ 
BEFORE A' 1 %% pk  V
THE Hozrnm MR J$*3_T!CE H'.K_I_iP¢!A.R 

WRIT PETi'Fi{>I$E"'E*§¢:;.138?'2'i'f2§}£§§?-.(GM-§{SFCiV

wt; MOQKA 't;3fiSAVE.SEiWAR1?; €:a§L If~iDUS'fRiES
BY yrs ;PAi?'?NER;'R.J;-RAMESH (magma 5;/0
223...}.x==AM.?A,:§A{mU'nA.,;;£3_Etmaai;-t;'£' 25 YEARS,
R If}   iii £«i..fiGE;Ki1Ri WALLI PGST .
SESRUGUP?¢._VTAL1JK,BELLAR'{ DISTZQICIT.

SR1 R .5 B£sSAVAI*§;£;C':£;U--§)£&
$19 R,J14T.PAMEA;iA$:A:;:BA,AGED ABOUT .39 YEARS
5:32: _6-- 1 1?"."-'._.{C3L{} 'Z'Is¥.C FLA'? NO.55,ASSESSME'i'
»»':'~1j:'j2. 1':'??~A;,wzx.R;m::>.5,PREsENT WARE} P50. 12

 'i3'E'I'1'I'IONERS

1  _  Sri GODE KAGARAJA, ADV}

CVAND"

'L--THE ¥<:ARNA'i'AKA STATE FINANCIAL
v  <:OR?ORA;TION,REPfB'f ETS MAi~IA€;%iN;§.*1f:;%rim.i_  Q2:  ma: PRELIMINARY'

HEARING 13¢ Bjvéfiiivmf7fi§Ii$:'iiAY,_ Tiifi COURT MADE THE
FOLLGWXNQ;  =     '

 g<;:-_;%1:'s_.;;;§;g

  ?1:lé°pe:t;n'cner iia$""'<:l1na}ieI1ged in this wztii pfstzitimn

  to them calling upon thcm in pay

 sum   as one timgit settlement to save his

 am_iv"qu$5;3 {M2 spa}: deed ciatczi 23]{)8/ $00?' as per

 trxccutcd by the KSFC: in favour of the 311*

V ' ' 1': --rgs po1Vidc11t.

 2* Tile first petifiszznczr is at industry rcgi$i:45:n_=,d as

  Linii: and situatexi in Tfiampura producing cieacadicrator

machine used far prcniucing ggmund nut oil and cake. The



the benefit. Hmsrcvcr, even bcfom expiry of 30 dag):   

KSFC executed sale (iced in favou:I'0f"xthc  u

23108/2007 selling the property be:+;:;1gé;;:;%gTeoTT  _

which was ofl'crc::i as  K$}7f}__.    the " V

same, the pefitioncr is bgfom _

3. After     have
entered appear     of objections.
4. jT1:1¢é: fenrfflxe pefitioners asamiing
the impuwed  af  iiiisifiniégadcnts cnontcnd that whctn

the KSFQ.  tiiinc. 33:1;t}eIncnt and grantsd 30 days

 "(hit  even before the petitioner could

   ;§,k:§i§icsiincI3r the KSFC sold the property to

'  "*~':'l1c 351  for @ amount of Rs.8(),OGfi/-- and

j'l1a_irc.execuie§ ~the sale deed and this action ef the KSFC is

 and umeasmxabic and they being an

V" V7i*'a:'gg~u:nentafity cf the State couisti not have comritlctczzd itscfl

.'   Such a manner. 



settlement and the intemst payable there on  éii' '

the Annmnut "D" tfll today. Accordingly, ti3§3;V  u u

deposited Rs.6,67,754/- + Rs.1,1'4;.Q0Qj~':'+'Rs';<geQi;)_%=«._&_j

compensate the 31*' I'CS}JOI1d.CIfii;. '~ This' S-hV@:rw.s_   51163 2 V L'

of 111:: petitiomcr. 'I'his__ shUw._s:_L:  the
pmperty. If the 3"'    the pmpcstty
not being aware of these;  03$?' fault with the
petitioner.  éiwfiistress Sam and a
party   auction shouid be.
prapamd to   gfich a 3311:. Under
theme   that the action of the
rust mspopficpt-fifififl'  gefiiiig the": pmperty in public
aaggm '%%i*as«e§ur%%% 9: 3;;-' V3*3'Vmspondcnt is illegal, miainaxy

 the same rcquims to be set aside.

 "'--Hz%::x::c:r;*e,  '  order:

  V._(a'} Vfiffii Petition is ailowed.

    ' Thc sale deed exmutnfi by the KSFC in favour of
A ma 3rd respondent dated 23198/2007 saflling the

nropcxty in favour caf the 3’4 respondent is

x/%

hereby quashmii,