IN THE HIGH coum 0? KARNATAKA cmcurr BENCH AT DHARWAD T T DATED THIS THE N DAY 0? DECEMBER, 7;' u x BEFORE %' _ THE I-i0N'BLE MR. WRIT mrrrxon N0. 1V3s54;«2da§(GM¥c.t>c; '\ ~ BE§fW§E_N: SR1 MARUTI, s/0 MALAJIKUMESHAR , AGED ABOUT 3': YEARS, 0cc:. s1:;Rm;.cE'-- % -- _ R/0 GARLGUNJ1,'rQ.KHANm=1J:2';' : DIST BELGAUM. v_ 'V ';;.PE'l'I'I'IC>NER (BY sm 3.M.E_A--i*1L sin .éi;,,1é';s1ei:1§D'E;''AD%zs. ) 1.
MAIAPRAB’ zafléi-‘:AMj BANK,
REPRESENTEDVVEKFFS-*.3RANcH MANAGER,
AT mnzmawa’, _D1m~3r;:.GAuM.
2. $521 ‘KAILASH’,-ASIVC) TUKARAM UTTARKAR
mags? mans, 0e-eBUs1NEss
” ” ~_ Rio MAl,KAffI CHALL, SAMADEV1 GALLI,
‘ Awjbmaugwfug, 9131’ BELGAUM. .. RESPONDEITPS
‘ T};-ZS PETMON IS man UNDER ARHCLES 226 AND
_ 227 03’ ‘i’£§IEVC0£~I9I’i’1’U’i*iOré or IPiD§A PRAYING TO QUASH THE
‘ . V’IM.’E?’UG§IED 02:32:12 DATED 28.2.2006 mssm . IN
“~’.hca;2s.1§o.s9/2004 BY THE comm’ OF’ CIVIL JUDGE{SR.DN}
‘ KHANAPUR AS PER ANNEXURE F’ AND ETC.
TI-{IS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
has no authority to retain the salary of second
defendant cm the disposal of the suit. The
should exhaust the remedy against defendazif’I’€o’.v1-fiigirzzeo’
principal borrower. It is onty whoa >§iefe1_t:;éiaI1.::ii’_’!:¢o;::1v”§ai3::é; ” ”
to repay the amount than ..
autholised to recover the 2: t_;v’1’a1.1I1t” No.2 L’
after the disposal of me p;-¢g§;;,g; ‘s;;it..at1£i,._th:€tefom it
proceeded to pass the _V
1CA.No. under Section
151 of cm: to ptaoztg
bank to’ie!e§Ioo is retained in S/B. A/c
of No.l§_24. or ‘No.2 and fimner directed to
not to rotoizxed defendant No.2 in fimue till
disposal of }’.’.’3¢ suit. ‘ :
said order was passed, the
filed a memo stating the amount
oticiort-:;i_..~ released is adjusted towards the loan
“‘amouiiL :’ Therefore, second defendant flied an
A »~aV_;;i3p1aioation Under Order 39 Rule 2A read with Section
of the Code of Civil Procedure for disobedience.
V Objections to the said application was filed. On
V
28/02/2006, the trial Court proceeded to pass the
following ordex”.
‘counsel for D-2 has prayed for to
amount credited to the loan account of
[perused the application presently filed _
to the Plocitttifi” to release 50%
acoountofthedefendantNa.1..’ d x
4. Aggrieved by some
defendant is before “-»
S»; “” for the petitioner
assajling tine jleontends in the first place,
counsel tlor-.% defendant has not filed an
V. xforh of 50% of the amount. On the
was for disobedience of the order
.on:’l:§VA:No.K where the plaintifl’ bank was directed
releaéée the amount in a stm of Rs.59,415/- which
the SB account by the second defendant. They
«A adjusted the some towards the loan amount of the
V’ tirst defendant, which is illegal. Thus they have
disobeyod the order and thmefore action to be taken
and therefore he submitted that the order passed is
\v/..
without jurisdiction and authority and requires to be
quashed.
6. Entire order sheet in ttlis cam . ltuced: A l
Second defendant has not made
of 50% of the amount to L,
No application is 2 £1′ The
application filed is for the bank for
disobedience 30/05/2005.
Subsequenftlyf’; order d1rectm’ ‘ g
the is retained in the
S.B. the salary of defendant
No.2′;ir1fi7xiH.”die;’)oe:a1 of the suit. If the bank has
towamds the loan amount of
I it is illegal and therefore bound to
_ release eaid amount and not 50% of the said
u ” ‘ amount
‘7. Under those circumstanca, the said
direction issued by the ma] court is unsustainable and
aceozfiingly it is set aside making it clear in view of the
V,
earlier order passed on 30/05/2005, the
pay a sum of Rs.59,415/- which was ‘
Account of the second defendalljggzfyd “‘ .
salary of the second defendant _fiisjA .
account till the disposal of s uit”OnV:mc:t’it
Sd/~
Iudge