IN THE HIGH COURT OF KAREVEATAKA, BANGALQRE
BATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL . V
PRESENT
THE H0N'BLE MR. RB. IZ)I§~IA}_1:£i:, ' ' " ' V
Bar1gai0re+"§6{3 O6--1."1 .. é .. Appeiiant
(By M £2 vagyaja, Aav.)
1. A 'The .KTa;rflata£{a State
"F'iJ:1ancia1 C0rp.,
. 1'{:'o';.}. / 1, 'Thizmrnaiah
" * 4_ Road, Near Cantonment
r __ fRa;1}.way Station,
"BaI1ga1ore-660 0512,
By 11:5 Managng Diregter.
M}
2. The R€C€}V(fi{'§? Qfficer,
Karnataka State
Einamcial Corp. ,
Na. 1/ 1, Thjmmaiah
Road, Near Cantonment
Raiiway Station,
Bangaioére~52. I
3. Karnaaka Ind}. Area
Deveziopmemz Board,
14/3, Qfid Fiaor,
R P Building, _
Nmpathunga FI0a::1,"g-- _
BaI2ga1oz"e--360 O01,' _ -.
Rep. By its Chaixtxzsm, " "'= _;~.'Respondents
(fly Sr: 8 ¥%uc1ré.gQ*5¥?c}.a,V3~§,dii_. for V’
This W~.A’.*–£33:nfiled’-.1}:1rier”‘Sefi:tion 4 of the Karnataka
High C.¢1.3E36_;’f2(305 passed by the learned
Single Jigdga.’ .
This ‘iX”:A.VVC{)VBE1iI:ig” for Preliminary H€aIiI1g before
()ou1;’t_§”tE1i:: day,”‘SABHA.EiIT J., gassed the foilowingz
JUI’)3Ifi’.ENT
is filed by {hf} pretitioraar in
V -V W.P!.N®.,4 356;l’2Q{}$ being agieved by the {}3{‘(i€2I’ dated
Whfirfiifl the iaarnad Siflgle Judge has declined
–“E£: V éuésh the crrder dated 6.12.2004 passed by the 15′:
” fé sp0nc1e11t — Karfiataka State Fimanciai Corpmratiori
\,J~
(hsreinafter I’€ff:I”I’€Ci 1:9 as ‘KSF’C’) and dismissed the writ
petitiem.
:2. W.P.Na.43E§6/12805 was filed by the appafigifilut’:
It is averred in the petition that the petitiq:1éK_:a;§pfi§a§§C1{%§Ci’V’
8316 Sm respondent —- “£x1dufifii;:fi ‘~.,’;%314g:3 7
Deveiopment Bcarti for 1:116 pu;rpt)s <:– 'C151' V. ailotmeiit 'Vin
the iixdustrizetl area fer the of é€;tfiQ§t;}.ist1zi;1gVVVPo111tr3?
Feed factery. The pefiti§i:.e1"13i%asts§i}Qt§&d_<}11eVfiéfé 9:" land; in
Kumbalgadu ind11su'ia}'VV_Af_ea Meanwhile,
the petiviio':1a1;A: §:if£L:a'.*3.«'3i3:a:*:*16:%r'sl*1ip with one Sri Abdul
Razak {'3-1: " "purpose of carrying an the:
piastic -7:x:c,_i19;ii:e and style of L R Plastics in the
si'i;§;*§."v–«–~*33}.'1e cost cf land was deposited and
_p:€s3$?€:".'~3$'i<)_ii ..ée.ftifiCate in favour of L R Plastics was issued
031* that tbs L R Plastics spent more than
' v.Rs.3,G3,'i3{)0/~ for construction of buiiding and development
Since there was difference cf epinien between
" petitioner and the said Sri Abdu} Razak, the
partnership was dissolved on 2.5.1992. Therefore, the
petiticner was unable to rezpaggr the 10311 amount regulariy
\?"
and the let respendent issued notices dateci 18.39.1993 and
26.11.1993 demanding the {;’t&’_VI11€I11T. of lean avafledee ~ 1e§yV_the
petitioner. Since the petitioner could net refieifir’
amount, the steps were taken 1.111c}e1§A,VS_eetigsI’1″:3:.”3;:: .VE’s’iZ-‘e”£f’3″
Financial Corporation Act, 1951 (1?1ere;i11efte:*_V1*eferfe§i~…te::.;;zs
the ‘Act? by order dated 8. wee *
authorised to take over theV_._aeeete._v ef 133:evV_pe¥*iitic)z1er in .
respect of the iz1dus’§ii’i2§}-. eez}§ceri1– ffjfef the purpose of
recovering tl1e4_:Ve,3:r1eL:.rit””ef ~ instead of
228.33 J
3. It “i:3 “fu:’ther:eexfezieeeizj the petitioner was tetafly
mislead anti-. Withe1_1€–.§vii1g any prayer gL1idanee for the
V’ Seie ef”the’§r0pefl:y, the property has been said
fer ~» and the market mine of the preperty
Ks.20,GO,€}(}{)/~ on the said day. The
‘;3etitienef1~ apyreaehed the Government being aggieved by
illegality in the said sale eendueted by the I{SF’C:
thereafier received a cheque for Rs.3,55,2G’7/-« on
V’ 15.6.1998 after a period of thrm years from the date of
auetien along with the statement shewing the payment
W
made by the Corporation to different authorities.-“‘—-.» It is
further averted that the sale conducted
accordance with law and is opposed V’
issued by the W respondent as «ivriet tzfée
statements and number of p:>eepeetix{e’V:p1;re}fi:31eere:
industry has not been ‘peepei’1y
auction. The auction’ §3€e;te dep0siteé in
accordance with law filed the
writ pe1:£t:i0z1_ thfi 01-(13,. dated
5.12.2003 fig éfeependent rejecting the
req.;1est.:ef __ _3:eendamus directing the is:
respondefitfe Qef ” the loss by the petitioner due
to aeti0Ii’e,f”t’he jfespondent by invoiiégzg Section 2% of
the petih’eeer’s preperty.
4. was resisted by the respondents
‘eeIite11:1ij’i,g that the petiflofier did I’}.(}t repay the 10311
n avaiieé fxem the 3″‘ respondent and therefore the
eiieps were ‘éaken under Section 29 of the Act. The
V’ petitioner gave consent for sale of the property ef
Re. 16,50,000 /- and afiger receverizag the amount due to the
\q«;,§-
KSFC, the petitioner has been refunded the aiiigauiit of
Rs.3,55,20″? on 16.6.1998 and the sale has bee;fi._§ki:iei.:i;eied’
in accordance with law.
5. Learned Single Judge, ‘ai’te_’I”e 3* ¢ces:¢i*e:i;§g.ii«
cententions of the Iearrieci etrziurisel Hfei’
p€’£i’tiO}’16I’ and the for
respondents N0. i and appearing
for :(‘esponderi°t_ I*%§i.f3, matter pertains;
to the pfititioner and the
KSFC “i..7r:ge. petition is based on
eaie Apiace in the year 1994 and
Carma: be iiitsi at” this point, of time and it is open to
” ~.l;he ..’;§eti§:i§)1ier texaaz-eii’ of such other remedies available in
1932.? the benefit of peiidency” of this writ
petiiien this eeurt ever since the date of filing on
3..2(3§§;EE and aecerdingiy dismissed the writ petition in
eiiove said observations. Being aggieved by the order
giaiteé 25.9.2008, the Writ petitioner has preferred {hie
appeal,
K/’
6. We have heard {:13 }€aI’I1€d counsel appearing for the
appaflant and $111!? iearned counsel appaaring far r€S.}: 0fi<i¢nt
No.2.
7. Learned counsal appeattfiig :4
reiterated the argumsnt n1ad{:_ b€f{Z.*1_'(§’ the ,V}5§$1;’.’1’fV’,if3:d °§$i’r1g1<'::v }y
Judge anci submitted that the Iias fiégn held in
accordance with law: ffissad ff}:-: learned
Single Judge is Hgble t;c} b,je T' V 1
8. On counsel appearing for
the 2mfv..’re–spL31i{i6Hf:”%sii’d§fit;ii.ttei’_i that the grovision under
Section Z29″ be invoked siflce the p€fifi()11SI’
. fidid V_a3$–;3.3; :_'<~;:paj,»' .a,3_:_;;Q.*ant, the sale has been czorzdutztetfl in
a¢CGrda::ca'ex#éi£%h law after obtaining the constant of the
pétitiéner 5'1"-_2<::if=1:V1o gamma whatever E133 been made out far
iI1E€I'f63."(3u:i;'}..{3€V in exercising the writ jtixisdictioii.
fife have @3611 caréfui czarzsideratimz 1:0 the
"Ct;1}t€IItiOflS of 1:116 learned caunsei appearing fer the pajfies
and gcmfinized the material on record.
W
10. The material on record Wouid cleariy Shaw that the
petitianerf appellant herein availed the loan from
is 1710?; disputed and r;o:1–repaymeI1t of the
Iaetitioner/appeilafit is also not dispgieé’ 1j.£1r:i<$:j t1fi.é:" »
(3iI'C¥.1I11Sti3IiC-ES, the materiai on ;'=.Ife(;'::1"w:1 $ho'~;x.%$ the
petitioner gave her consei1§~..for sa1e» (Sf 'prspefty of'
Rs.10,50,000/- and £1162. saleVA.h$:{:iv-takén pZEac.<: the year
1994 and the writ pez:i:io£;.%v$a.sf%}%.:}1edV.[.§;;i' 13.1.2005 and no
cause what€ve1fii'a_s_ b-:=;é'1'r:%."I's§§2'z.~':i. e'~..§§;f;!.§'::. {I16 delay in filing
the writ ;f1ret,.i;:v:;i;'<;"3*i':…,__V '
11. Tlié’ ixzouid cleariy Shaw that the
petitiozxer has I1:2’i;V’a:ii1ig<:3.'1t in approaching this Court
V' pr: tfié'haSis of censerfl: given by the patitionar,
sold for Rs.10,5G,GO{)/~. No geund
whagéver. .'is':~_. 'fixaée cut. for interference of the order
'impugficézfi $321 {$16 writ petition. Thae learned Single Judga
V' TV.'§ia;s,_I'§?Serv€d iiberiy to the petitizmar to avai} of such other
ffifnedies available to the petitioner in law and to claim the
benefit of pendency of the writ petition before this 0013::
ever since the date 0ff'11i11g an 28.1.2005. Accordingly, we
\,./\
hold that {ha ertier passed by the iearrmd Single: Jfiiige is
justified and does not stiffer from 3.113; arror 0;j"fi–1%§g*,,§:§_fit'j{_VAa.s
to call for mterfererace in this imira court giasg
the foiiowing:
GREEK
‘file writ appeal is disInis$:ied; _
sd/..
V’ Chief justice
Sd/-9
Iudgé
. inde3:~§’.:Y%y”.N75wé ” . ,
‘I ,_ . E’ I if/A . . . . . ..
V x%;¢i:»«. I:;Ipsfc_:
:3;::1ia.-._: