C R Rame Gowda vs M/S Karnataka Bank Ltd on 9 June, 2008

WP M033! '#2006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE gm DAY or JUNE 

BEFORE

11;: Karma an. menu K. sum  ' 1 A! ~  J 

WRIT PETITION NO. 33   (a'3M¢o§m.  'V   T }

BETWEEN

1. C R Ramc Gowda,

Age: 60 years,  '  :
S/o lair: Rudrc Gowda,   '  '
R/0 Chikkahallavvillage,  V .
Guflanpgt Past,   V .  2: 

 V   

2. c R  
Age: 28  ' " 

3. Miss.  'R      
Ag<== 26  "   2  

_4. CR.__-fiavind, V. A _
  A.  ..... ..

 «:2 rnmmt,   *

Chikimn ofgpetitioncr No. 1 and

Gifllmipet Post,

  Taluk.

%   V K Narayana Swaasgr, Adv., for petitioner)

Petitioners

 



WP N{).33l 712066

4. Learned Counsel for the xespondent/Bank sub1nits:'tha.t the

petsitionem filed the written statement he the 

before the D R '1' and subsequently they did not  

therefore it cannot be said that the     at  :4. A'

an ex-parte order. He also submits aeper  of  
the impugned otder at Annextue-A of '1' ie  tn
view of the altexnative    they have
no right to file the present   the pxesent Writ
Petition is not    the petitioners are
not entitled for ainfirtt He also submits that on
3.2.2006,    of sale, dixected the
petitioners tedeposst 10 lakhs within a period of three
weeks,   ~v3'_x4V1Ats.°.. x;iin~~'oItier shall stand vacated. In spite. of
  '(i€.};._1Q_S§t the amount, the petitioners have not

 On 20.2.2608, the interim order granted in

 * Vfavouf ofthe  was vacated as the petitioners deposited oniy

 a 'sum of Rs§3,0G;OOO[- with the respondent] file

— is pertinent to mention that when the petitioners have got

V. ‘ efitoéeious statutory remedy in law, they are not entitled to approach

tins Court under Artie’ lee 226 55 227 of the Constitution of India.

L

WP HD3317/2006

$ . In View of the above, the Petition is disposed of to

the petitioner to file Appeal under section 20 of .45

days fmm today and if the petitioners ail ”

fimn the date of receipt of the of -:

Authority shall entcrtaaixl the same of

limitation and disposoofthe same, in V. costs.

Bjs