High Court Karnataka High Court

H M Abdul Khader vs Branch Manager on 28 September, 2010

Karnataka High Court
H M Abdul Khader vs Branch Manager on 28 September, 2010
Author: Mohan Shantanagoudar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KAIEZNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 28" DAY or SEPTEMBER, 2010,
BEFORE " a

THE HON'8LE MRJUSTICE MOHAN 5HANTAN.¥_rGC)LjV:[)ir4\F&: _" ' "

wan PETITION No.3o755/2010    Vk

BETWEEN:

H.M. Abdul Khader

S/o iate M.A. Mohammed
Age 48 years

K.G.S. Madani Saw Mili _ ._ _   v
Bychanahalli, B.M. Road " '   
Kushalnagar Post' '  V
Somwarapet Tvaluik, _  _  ' 
Kodagu District.     "    ..Petitioner

(By Sri  for Iyengar S. Varadarajan)

AND;_

  Managxér" **** 

, =.Karnata!<,a"State Finance
  rp'0ratiO 

 ._ "I'J.Q.1"8,"'Zn_du:s'C%ia| Area

'['_/|?:ldiF(V_E3.I"i.a' "

 Mar*.ag":'ng Director

an .Karna'taka State Financiai

 .V_COgrporation, 1/1
 Thimmaiah Road, Bangalore.



3. H.M. Abdul Khadar

4.

8.
9.

Smt

Smt

. Smt

. Smt

Smt

Smt

.H.M.

.H.M.

.H.M.

.H.M.

. H.M.

.H.M.

Suiekha Bibi

Safia

Ayeesha
Mayish
Shakina

Sayeeda

10. Smt. H.M. Badrunrléssa

11. H.M. Mumtaz

12. H.M. Kabir  

13. Smt. H§;M.1"_J.ashé'e|.'a{_:..,._T

R3;':._to --R'13VVa:'r.e'-arlitEYtajo'r~., ' ''

And»res--idingV atj2_ "

Bychanahalli"'aIilI'a.ge..""'.»a. 44 V

8.154. Ro'ad_,' Kai:-hal'vna'g'ar

fifiomewarpet; Kodagis District.

dated

  _(s3Ln.ru.faj,Joshi, Adv., for C/R1)

 ._  is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the _ Constitution of India, praying to quash Annexure-D

2.7.8;2010 Sale Notice / Process

 _    "This writ petition coming on for preliminary hearing,
  this day the Court made the following-

..Respondents

. initiated by the
. 4′ L_Respon-;1ent 1 and 2 and cancel the sale auction and make a
fresh forvrecovery procedure laid down as per Law and Act.

QRDER

Petitioner has sought for the foiiowing re|iefi_’~~_:_:’._V_

“Quash Annexure-“0″, ffsi Q:

27.8.2010, sale notice/processJnitieteoii
by the respondents 1 and

the sale auction and iiméké a”,_”_i.f.’*iE*s:’.i

recovery procedure b _dow”n .__as per
and Act”.

It is brought toE’tii.e’V vt’t;e”.__Court by the
iearned of respondent
No.1 that place and sale
certificletee ‘T? the successfui bidder,
viz., Sriwiit is so, no reiief can be

grap,n_it:eVcinA.in thi’sAA\iiiri’t petition in favour of the petitioner.

writ petition fails and same is

dismissed}: A

\~””

A4″

It is open for the petitioner to proceeo in

accordance with law before the appropriate’foroéné

questioning the sale if he so chooses.