MFA No.3(}289!2G08
IN THE HIGH COURT GF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER " T» H
BEFORE
ms nownm Dr. JUSTICE K. '
MISCELLANEOUS mzsr APPEA:g"'s~:o.3é2s9;
BETWEEN: ' « 5
Dr. R.M.Si1dcsa:i,
S/o.Sirdesai,
Aged about 63 years, V 1 . »
Occ: Retired Mceciicalgairagsr, 2;
R/o Amaxavathivillgagc, 5f = '
Tahik: Hunagund;
Dist: Bagalkot. """ " Appellant.
{By S1'i.Sanjay}\;'--P§atailV&sVV" % . _
Sri.J.A1;gustii3, _Advs;, for Kppeliant)
1 %%%%%
1. Kamka "F1 W
No.25', Gandhi Road,
Bangal6:*re- 1__." '
' .4 :l'v'£LfVé5>.._§{1ish:zr1a;.icva1~aya Straw Board
Lndusttits Pvt. Ltd.,
4StaiicV5:I1.Road, Raichur,
'- 101.
1' " -Siddaramcshwmuswamy,
Since deceased, by his L.Rs
R)
13)
<1}
1;).
MFA. 140.3028?/2008
Salt. Shivagangamma,
WI eulate Siddarameshwaraswamy,
Age: 46yca1's,
Kcdarnath, V
S] o.1ate Siddarameshwaraswayay,
Age: 46 years, *
Sr.i.Vishwa11ath,
S] o.1ate Siddarameshwaraawafiiy
Age: 40 years,
Smt.(31':rijamma, n » _ x ;
Dlojatc Siddmamcshwaxaswamyg
Age: 35 years, --.
Shivkumar, _ _ _ g _
S/odate S1{ida1*ar'5r:.ahwa:a_swamy;"._V '
Maha{3;a_lcshv§fVa;i='sg--'V.._» V ._ %
S] o.lat§;_Sidda1 ' ':hwaras,w&ny,
Age: 31 ycam, ' ,.
Smt.;Akkgmxfia, ., V' V'
_ D/._§3;"£a"£;qSi{1dax*aiiE.'a1¢11=$'a1"aswany,
"Agni 31"'yeaI2-2,._
3,! (Hate Siaidaiancshwaraswany,
Ag€=:..33,__:ma1?§.
Smt. Rajgfihmc,
3 ., D,' Gnjate Siddarannshwaraswany,
" .Agg::M(;30 cyars,
abs: :1 o. Ba1agaau1~V,';;agc,
~ Sindhanur,
Dist: Raichur.
MFA No.3G2R9!2008
4. P. Bassanna,
8/ o. Goudappa,
Major,
C] 0.1%] sdanata Printers,
No.37, Dr.T.C.M.Royan Road,
Chamarajpcth,
Bangalore-2.
5. Dr.S.B.An1arkl1ed,
Majm",
R/oflijalingappa Clolony,
Raichur, Pin--584 101. V '_ A_
6. V.A.Patii,
Major,
R/o.Pati1 Nivasg
Gunj Road, ' . U
Raichur, Pitt-58.4--.VIG' i;._ b _
7. Sri.M.Shéf3i2a[Jpa, "ff
M31301) ._ --
Amarajyethi,' ' 1
Sath Kacheri Road, " f ,\ ---
Raichur, PixI«584- 16.1. " Respondents
“me First Appeal is fikxi under Order 43 Rule
l(d) {Sf to set aside the order dated 14.7.08 passed in
Civil iviiéci 539.7/02 by the Prl. met. Judge, Raichur & to anew the
_, , § M”$’~’- No???/O2 on the fiie of the Pr}. Dist. Judge, Raichur.
Appeal coming on for admission this day, the Court
giexiyeiees the following:
_S}*:.1_°i Kxiisimagievazaya” V
MFA No.30289:’2008
J
The appellant is before this C.’ou_1t.».n_n4dcI_”
1(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, c1:.a1k+;eging”eeesj;¢
14.7.2008 passed in Civil Misc. :~a£;.7.;%2o02e.¢$n Wnist:~ic»::’
Judge at Raichur. 2
2. The brief facts of We th;-{ firing of the
Appeal may be stated as under ‘»
The rVesp}n_ denii filed a M1soe’ llaneous Case in
No.21/1994 Judge at Raichur, against M/s.
Board at. Allied Industries Pvt, Ltd.
L a%:x;t*zsi5:en:Tms~e:;zg§1e: seam 31(a) & (C), 31(1){aa) and 32 of the
Act, 1951, for mcovery of
Rs,1,80,;¥},2?45¥Oi with interest at the rate at’ 14.5%» Respondent
the Min-scellaneous Case, wen: the Directors of the
Ififl.uée§ em they obtained loan of Rs.30,00,000[- and an the
T had executed a guarantee and dwcl of ageement, but
did not repay the loan amount and oosxxmittrxi default.
MFA No.30289l20|’.l8
Therefore. notice was also issued to thaw, but in vain. It- is also
statw that all the notices were returned . t’a’1¢ir
whereabouts were not known. ‘I’l1c1’cfore ,_ ‘
No.1/Karnatlca State Financial coxpgmtion zzéfifion £91? T
rccovezy of the amount. Aficr
respondent No.2 (in the C»éiSi’=L- “hi.§ L.RS;’,V
were brought no xcoord. Nqttiocs isstlnéd._t0–..;esp6fidnnt,§o.2(c)), (c),
(1) and (j) were Icturnbd “”thcy refused to take
notzkrc”. Therefore, “1§’cld sufiricicnt and
they am placed ts’) Nos.2(a) to (j)
and mspon:dcI_1t_A upon respondent No.5. But,
they mmain§$t1VV_abscfit.;§nfi1d’ placed ex-pane.
A has got examined and got marked
E:ea._1b’-=»;’. to autigiuf-‘..W–2 also got marked Exs.P–3 to P-6. P.Ws.1
2 jirerc. E1033-examined. Tim respondents have not
afiduccd cfiigiéncc. The learned District Judge, on the basis 0f the
“gglacml on record. allowed the Petition for recovery of the
‘ -V: .e_ii}iou1at
L
MFR N0.3G289:’20G8
As against the ex-parte onier made in Misc: Case
No.21/1994, the present appellant fikzd the Petition fifder
IX Ru1e13 r/W Section 151 of C P C, praying to set
dated 7.4.1993 made in Misc. Case Ne;21.[419§f4;”VV’T§ie was” A F’
registered in (3.Mise. 7 /2002. The case 5; tn;-éj eagjpénamfiyaus
notice was sewed upon him a11 §i._ he
proceedings and the order zon.1.jI received
notice in Ex.P-4. It was the appellant was
the Director of the (fnmpmly-anhfiilee §»fe.e_ various places
and afier he oe and permanently
residing at :Amare§etbi..fi?fllage;”Hyangnnd Taluk.
The ~ respendvej1tf’Cei*9o;1’afion etntezrui appearance and
of the ease of the appellant herein,
as P.W’-I besides examining P.W-2 and
“~””got to P-19. The respondent] Coxporation got his
efiaeimed as R.W–1 and got marked Exs.R-1 to R-‘7. On
tl’1e’L:1v’)’:s?;sje ‘ef the material placed on record, the trial Court came to a
H oeiielitsion that there was no merit in the Petition and dismissed
. ,., , same with costs. This is impugned in this Appeal.
L
MFA No.30289l2fl08
3. Learned Colman} for the appellant submits many
contentions raised on the merits of the case were not
and the trial Court erred in not condoning the
C-ivii Misociianeous pm-eocxzlixlgs and s§_t,..a$_idc
made in Civil ?\4iSC- 2111994.
4. If. is pertinent to thaf jaéfhile .»
Petition filed under Ordcr IX Ruler: C P C. going on
the merits of the case by the
KSFC under Sections 31 and 32′ ten; :’stat_§¢” Corporation
Act does Hint a;§i5¢’; ‘*:*1;~.=.-. -utterly failed to show suflicicnt
cause for nof trial Court in Civil Misc. Case
No.21/1s,§94..frh¢$ ‘.’E)i.~.;t:rict Judge, aficr rcfming to the
placed on record, has held that the
5u$c1en’ it cause for tzondonizlg the xielay in
Pgaifiggfiand also failed to show sufiicient cause for
” asitiicfftle cxv-part: order. I we no illegality or infirmity in
4: 1:116 order. Them is no merit in the Appcal.
L.
MFA No.3G289!2008
8
5. In the result, the Appeal fails and thereby
dismissed at the stage of admission itself. ‘*7