_ 1 -
IN THE HIGH COKIRT OF KARNATAKA CKRCUIT BENCH
AT QHARWAD
Dated this the 213% day of November, 2008
BEFORE ' 'V
THE I-ION"3LE MR. JUSTSCE H. %
Writ Petition No. 30460 gsfédoa ..gLB-RE~T$)"-- _
Between:
Chanabasayya
8/ o Gadigcyya Malimath
Aged 70 years V
Occ; Agriculture ._
R/0 Udayanagar Havcri _ v : '-- V
Taluk 65 Dist: Havcré. _ ' "'--.{;i5etitioz:1er
' 4' V Advocate)
And:
1 ,_""§'«:.T1_1éAssiétéixxt. %%%%%
. V of C::::--operative
§§Q(§ififi€§é§'3;31d Salk-as Oficcr
._ 'i)an.¢S§'1$iu'a1i Nagar
"--.V'Ha§v;::fi.----
'V 2 TEE; Ménger
Mt:-rchants'
" 4_ Co-operative Bank Ltd,
Statien Road
Haveri
T The Sccrctary
APMC M
-2-
APMC Yard
Havcri
4 The Commiwioncr
Agticultuxal Produce
Marketing Department
Vishvcshwaraiah Tewer I _
Vidhana Veedhi V" "
Bangalom ---- 560 O0 1
8/0 Mohammadasab Kwmzixzsayak
Age: 55 years " ..
Occ: Business V
R/olkgadi p
Taluka as District Ha_a?ex*i---.
6 Mmtyusn§aya_ ._ ,
S/0V6%=I'a1§p'a Bas.ai".ai1a1
Occ: E3111-'§iITiess" '
15 %
Ha-Jeri . ,\ --.
_ Taluiia an Di:3;tt':.~::t'Hav§:ri Respondents
% V (By S§ii£§ K Vlflyavati, I-ICGP for R1;
S N , Advocate for R2;
' ._..~~S1"i (LS. Pafil, Advnczate for R3)
mg m Petitisn is filed under Articles 226 and 22? of
the Clenafitufinn cf imiia, praying in quash Annexum=~L the
" nssz}_;e mésitice dated 24-7-2008 issuefl by respozudent No' 3. in E?
P¥o."10'?/2032-63 ané the Annexeci Farm No.8 issueé by
'._réspAondent--1 dated 24-7-2008 viéc An11exuzve--M.
This Writ Petition. coming on for orders this day, the
Court matic: the following:
E/"
-3,
ORDER
The petitioner has challenged in this 4. ‘
Axmexure-L the notice issued to the eepeiitioztef’vate%.C1ting:»jhis dt dd
property and bringing the said
the award amount.
2. The 5th respbddent «borrowed a sum of
Rs.1,2S,000-00 fr-eta the”*a~e’eo3:Ld Chaxdaztaum
Merchants’ _ mertgaging the
pmperty -1-i-43+43 plot No.78 xaeasuring
10 guntaa him by the third respondent-
APMQ.’ “file fiefifiefier sdmdi the 6*” respondent are the ssureties
the 5*” respondent committed default
1 ‘iztid the loan, the Bank initiated recovery
imder Seetiea 79 of the Kametaka Ccwope-raelve
V”SeeiefieeJ3-let, before the axfiaiuator. Sn 29.04.2090, an award
Vt be passed directing 591 respondent, 62*’ respondent
the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.2,’?6,()4~’?–GO. in the
mean Whiie, the third ;esp0r;dent~APM(3 has cancelled
4. The learned Counsel for the pCtIit:’l{)I1CI’.’:’E’.~.t§.E’7a”-5’3>’JVi.I’iI}g
the action of the respondents contend that when
concerned persons are seriously .« ..
getting permissien to sell the
property is sold after such mI1nis§ion;’flf1e ent§=:{fe p
to the Bank would be paid and txb’ neeessity for the
I Bank to proceed against ‘tA1.iet§>etitioner.
5. “”” ‘i;he award is passed on
29.o4.2°aoo- 4′ of Rs.2,’?6,(}47-GO. The
petitioner the ޤ5A.1esifondents are the sureties, the 5*
, respefnclefit. is t1:ie’*–pzjn¢ipa} borrower. Even after 8 years, not
at :$’i2’1_VgVic_Apie “paid. Law is well settie&. The liability of the
iev with that ef the principal debtor. When
V . the was mertgagefi is refined by the ewner,
H K sfiéankvv” no option except to proceed against the snreties
principal debtor and their personal pmperties. it is in
‘f:'{§I*$11zaJ1ce of that, impugned Aunexum-L is issueé.
” Therefore, there is no illegaiity in the action taken by the
L1//”
nespozndcnt in bzinging the petitioner’s pmperty….1iG ‘Vitzr
recovery of the amount awaxtied. In that V’
do not find any merit in this wm pgaéificn. .§ is A
dismissed.