,4″: vi II-l’!.l\l’f”ll.FIl\-l’| ntwn I.a\.lI.u\lA I;)«rV__: RHKPIHIHAH l”li\7l’l MUUKI UP BRQCNRIAHH HIUH LIOUXI Oi” KAKNATAKA HIGH COURT OF
settlement of the amount due ho be paid to tha
respondenm under the old 0.T.S. Scheme ”
3. The Writ Petition wag resis~*.a¢Ai.:’:j’~.Vbff:: 4t!§v1¢é ‘ «
ruspondenu.
4. Laarnad sing:-a Jada;_vh§§rifi§:ff1;fbamod
counsel for the for
respnndenl: No.2,__heId vthai: fiaough were
afforded suifigiéfigif claim with the
rnspondapfii Scheme, did not
avail of thvpvakora, it was not open can
thus writ ‘ 5§§fiti¢’n§«r{‘-£§” for a direction he the
rvaspzgrjudxmlts §taf:sit.Ies:’* fi1-air rupraeatation and the
ha’V%f’&h’ained from taking actson in
and accordingly, dismksed the Writ
L Fatima by my damn: 28.02.2009. Being aggrieved by
tfilsr, the writ pefitionsrs have profomrd this Writ
ks)’
Avgr:-se&:mi+.*ié:é?%.f%é
vvunfwxi nnnlvflinnn ruurs uuum Ur mama-ram 1-IEGH coum or KARNATAKA me:-1 COURT or KARNATAKA me:-1 COURT
5. We haw heard the teamed counsel appearing
forlhe appellants. V’
6. Laarnw counsel fiar ti-:eWappell;a:;*i’.:§’.:” »
that the potitionam – appeiiants ifigerag-in .
improssian that when the V
deposit afRs.30 lakhs mat thuir %:§pmmantms§n%ror%fuu and
final settlement of the OVIAtVi 0.7.5.
Scheme would haAconsid em:d :g:: tv5.V any action
on the saiq %%é&9.os.2oo2, the
rwwndnfifii of Section 29 of
tho Act bv 29.é%.2oos. Learned single
Judafi ouAqj’i1_3;’ttJ “tho ravspondmts to considtr
the rq:;pt”uganfiuti§:;§”6f Ifsa Tpetiticnars as sought’ for in tha
‘ haavq given camfu! cnnsidcratian be me
af the learned counsel appcaring for the
T.’i!¢!h%–i!§«nts and scrutinized the matariat on record.
x93
“”””” “” “‘””””””‘””‘ “‘”-‘” \-V9!” VI.” “HKIYHIHAH !’l|\’fl’l V.-IJUIII ur nnnmu-unlxn ruuri LUUKI Ur KAKNAIAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
8. It is now well settled that fairnsss cannot ha a
one-way st:-set. The fairness required of the
Corporations cannct be carried tn the extent _
them from reenrvaring what is due H1em.~».. f§¥h’i«!é ” ~..
insisting upcm than barrowor to
undertaken by him, this Hnanr:ie4l1_.Cor§o_r’§tien
be ihacidod hand and foot in and
masonablanuess is to theu fiminant
corzsideratinn ho Asecur1a:AA…tlig::.. held by the
I-§¢n’h|e Suprgihé STATE
xuuusnezgg ant: aexremmenr
ooRPorzAT1c>i~3kk%%2.3M:TEt: c.=$rALEr mom 1.79., AND
OTHERS The rnatanriat on racord
_ woulfldéi cizzgrly ‘1th§?t fine writ petitioners – appellants
hfisagj gi’.ér§§?i”‘1¥ppo:*t:1nity to wall of awe benefit of
i V Scheme and though the petitioners
_ approach the AGM., KSFC, Myaona
_ efifio, for connidurinq his roquost undlr the old
K A as that Schtma was open only for a limitud
j% x psi-sad by Ietear dated 29.0126-es, the first petitioner –
‘” Trs.:st had net approached the KSFCL, and one more name
6»)
“””””” “‘ “””””‘””””‘* “”-“” ‘«-‘-‘V'” !-‘«|._’ RHHIVHIMNH rnurl uuum ur Iunxmnlnnn ruurl LUUK! Ur KAKNAEAIKA HJGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Act. Having regard to the above said material on rucord,
we do not find any ground to differ with the View
the learned single Judge as the order
learned single Judge is justified andfloes am” a
any arror or illegality as in call ifigr
appeal.
Accordingly, the H As the
appeal is dlsposaaalnf asjlsrzérfi, to 9:: men
tha question L!
. . , . ‘Q ‘V ‘
Chief Iusfice
3d/-3’
Iudgg
l l vague