A RERSY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE. DATED THIS THE 2390 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 20: 0 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE MOHAN SHANTANAQOVVUAEJARA A Writ Petition No.4883/2010(,:CSM:~KS:F'G) = ~ I "I & Writ Petition No.49Sg_I2QL'tOI(3M:t<St=OI7_A BETWEEN: ALL WEATHER ROOFING PF'tvIT'VAT_E_VL!l\g'!ET't'£D, FLAT NO.G2 PARAGGNv»RjES|'DE,NCY It ' " l\£O.52, SERREI§I'T.INE;_STR.I:~:ET V' _ RICHMOND3.,TO3iVN,~. A S 1;; BANGALéT)RE=~e 569 0251- -- REP._B_YH |""t'7$'PR;QMQTER OIREOITOR A/Irs.AzTEE zA AKBAR :1' A PETITIONER (By Smt.S R AwRI.AOHA;IActt§;',) _ KARNvAT.AKA-STATE FII\IAI\I_cIAI.. CORPORATION No.1/--;I T'I--It'I\/III/IAIAH RAOD, BANGALORE - 560 052 RESPONDENT
“.”(V”B:y SrI.RAGHu, H.P., AtIv., FOR
f ~,Sr’i’.GURURAJ JOSH], Adv.,)
THESE WRiT PETfTtONS ARE FILED
ARTILCE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTEON OF iNDiA PRA’YfN'{?a, ”
TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS PERTAtNiNG’_–‘TO’AE’TFf~’iEW;
AUCTiON OF F’ETfTtONER PROPERTY DT.V2»T”.’1_2.’Q9;
4.2.-roro ev THE RESPONDENTS, ETC …. .. ”
These petitions coming on for pre.tim5hery
Group this day, the Court made thee.foiiowing:’»=.
ORDER E” _
The petitioner has sought storm,’roiib~;iisng reiief:-
“(b) ;Gra’ritf’a \i4_rit,§ order” orutdirection in the
nature of rruarid_antu~s’iV’di.reot§«niQ’~~th’e’Etrespoerrdent to accept
from thepetititorriegthegaihourita.éiyv.hich the property
has ijeeo _ci-earance of the loan
amouatwsih respearg at Plot Nos.83, 84(P) in
Sy.Nos.t25_, ;*38VO,VVi38.t;.’582;’_583, 586 in Jigani industrial
Afe§i’._ifgaHt ‘Vi-iotiiig’/5.nei{aI Taluk, Bangalore mortgaged
‘~ _ toiirttie r_e.spo{1dentHvideregistered mortgage deed dated
2 » ;O7,_O1…1_985e.at*Annexure — ‘A’ and to retransfer the
A .se;rr3e avio’o.g_vri’tit”a|i its super structures in favour of the
petitioner”._ ” ‘
The petitioner has raised ioans from the
1′” _respor’idEeht~oorporation by mortgaging the property in question
for a sum of Rs.49,72,000/~ on 07.01.1985. Since the amoqnts
are not repaid, possession of the property was taken ..i:J~,r.,:’t«h’e~V.vv
respondent-corporation under Section 29 of State.
Corporation Act, 1951, in the year 1995…. _Ti|| 2006’i:aiso,’itrie
amounts are not repaid. Ultimately}, :ifl;l’3:V:A::’V’:
property was sought to be auctiiiovri-e,d. ‘The p_etiti_’o’n_er*~»ifiIed
W.P.No.15688/2006 questioning the..a};ctionLA saie; which’ came
to be dismissed on 21.11.20’C€§…T’h_ef’:eaftér,f_auction had taken
place.
3. The arefiled praying for the
aforementioned relief.» -~
4. -, rhiseouieareceati the petitioner on 20.04.2010 to
Ci’-ores three weeks. Till Then, further
proc.eVxed.Eng3,’werefstayed. However, in the very order, it was
}””made clear that,viAi’ncase, if the petitioner does not deposit Rs.5
” i.”C.r_oi*eAs withinthree weeks, it is open for the petitioner to auction
ti~.e{‘pvrope’rty and recover the amount. The amount of Rs.5
V”