Walter Rosario vs The Manager on 18 March, 2009

__. _..v---an

v_,- 'v- Iv-nnI1r\i!~\!\I4 FHUH LUURI U!' KARNATAKR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HKSH QUUKI UP KAKNAIAKA filbfl LUUK

In THE HIGH oour-:1' or mammm AT  %  A    _

mama THISTHE 18*" mm :25 MARCH 
FRESENT     ¢ 

me I-om3:.e Ma. 9.0.    A

AND     
ma new as musnce 

 

aetwseru:    

waurea R_flSARiG    
s/e.%%M%A%kRaL®AR1ca&k   %  
M§E$"i'fi§E'1,   
PRQPRiE'TOt%i§"-WS."RO$.AR1O

SAW mus mt) vzriausmres,
PAMa'1HoaARu, J , 

'p!!Al(UL:'3OR.-v'*  

..?§lANGALDRE.A-V 515 ms. vermomen

%  (gysr: ézssuassu, AEW., )

unsung:

 me MANAGER,
= 3 = : %ooRPoRA'rIoN BANK
-  ASSET RECGVERY
MmAc£Menrr 8RANCH
aw CORPORATION BUILDING
GROUND noon, mama
M.G. ROAD
MANGALORE - 535 ms. aesmnnem

(3? Sri : V B RAVISHANKER, ADM, )



------ --vv-- 'arc ua-uuur-ur-|I\r'I ruuwrl \--\JiJl'o.' NJ?' i\l\fll'II'\IP\!\.F\ F"'IIL'.7l"'l LJJIJK' LII" NHKFVHIHEH |"'H\.7i"1 DKJUI

ms WP :5 mac pmvzuc 70;;-QUefis:~s.?% 
IMPUNGED URDER DT.22.4.0B,. PASSED BY *  4_
RECOVEY AP9ELlJaTE TRIBUNAL IN  u 2. 'V

MA.N0.128,.!07,VIDE ANN-A.   

n-us wan Perrrzm comma v4t3!? 'F0R ésa.~sL1ramATiivk%%k»%
HEARING on THIS MY, kaaawxurr V__3.,_'a{!ADE*'VV"THE k

FOLLOWING:  
V  1'   

Thk writ  by the
order     Tribunal
(hlminuvftnrv V_ _    Trllanal' ).
Chennai, in * ..fis;£psal Na. 12312007 dated
22.04-.2N8;%:}wh§r§ifi §fI§'::§_g§fi;!lau Tribunal has set aside

 the gztfgiér.  fha Debts Rncavery Tribunal (far
   ), Bangaiore, in MA. Ma.19l2005 dated

%12%.%  

 .. 2.  .. Th: petitioner herein had borromd money

'V  the nspondont - Bank and since thi petitiomr
_V : _ caar1:1mithad dafauit in rapaymercl: of tha said lean, an
 " arbitration award dated 27.01.1995 was passad in

Arbitmtion Case Ha?/1992 on the file of the M. Civil
Judge, Manqatorc. As per Secfion 31--A of the Rccovuty

\.2



-...r....--- . auari \...\JuK| Ur IKAKNAIIAKA H331 COURT OF KARNKFAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA I-IG-H COUR

not but: paid as psr the harms of thc  
App-aiiaee Tribunal, by ordar dated 22.04.Zt.1'.'.fi."'1:'h}e:%:e${:   ' 
the order passed by the DRT; 
:~ao.19;2oos dated 13.12.zm§ é%%%gnsustam :5}§%% gm 

accordingly, sot avid: thy  by ii-rs-gfisiiig East of
Rs.10,0Wl'* iiuyabio by km mspanaan:.m:uan.r harem
within four masks from   copy of we
order an Indm}z *+'§:i1'\the}__A V. Sociaty (K),
Bangalore.    said order cf the
Appeilattg  _*§a;1l§ition is filed by Hm
mspand¢Eht"V:in fh¢  

  _ "4\  k'?aA\.ha§§V"'fi§§rd tbs burned counsel appearing
 fiar" i:_h§'  the learned counsel appearing for

: V  '  tha }""--"4;*'V'l1it¥,"f«:1'?$:!'§%.' 

  Loamad -mums! appearing for that petitioner

.  fqhinitud an the basis of thc dstnils of an payrmnt made
fby tha writ pufitiwmr hernia that in 31!, 3 sum of

Rs.9,93,953[-, inciuding irruermt at the rate of 8.5% per
annum with quarberly rests *3 due as on 31.01.2609 and

\J§3.



law!-fiGH coun

_... 'fl m-nun-_unnA mun LUURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COUR7 OF KARNATA

 

13.12.2005

modifying rm Recovery Certificate, is %
and Eye Appeilahe Trihunai has rightly in-xpaged ;:Vz?x_;;¢ :Ir’1 V
the petitioner. The impugned crdevh

Appellate Tribunal does not suffiI;;”‘~–. _
illugality as no can for intnrfufamca writ fad
I’ll do not find any reason IV::*e4– §:;:I_c_I’«–.§: “flour in thus
matter. Accardinnly, M ho!c§..z£~:..§_§_I::”i;hVer_u.:%’ in this
writ Petition and pg:

The wrazpssiiigsfz gsggmsaea.
Sd/-

Chief Justice

Si/’9
Iudgfi

“same

Index: Yasjnlo