High Court Karnataka High Court

Smt Susheelamma vs Karnataka State Industrial … on 7 July, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Smt Susheelamma vs Karnataka State Industrial … on 7 July, 2008
Author: N.Kumar
Ur NIIIVHIIIIHI I'IiV|"|    HIGHCOIRT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COUITOF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKK HIGH COURT 1

IN THE HIGH noun? or xnnmarhxn nm_néfiéhLbafiffV,

um-En 11-113 mm 7" nAv_JoE__JuL*("20aé'_';. *- "

BEFORE V

THE HOH'BbE Mn;du§TI¢E,H'KuMafiQ; _' }

w.P,No.asafb8 ¢GM--§Es}" f

an? 3U3HEEL3Mh" "; _ ,;_ -~,'
KYO nn T @gaau'xn:sHuA°A ==-m.
AsEn_AncuTi§a v3s_%_ ~14 .
R£AT3N0.I43 ' J "J. «_;
r-339:1":-:c'>*~._1'2 1:'-:.p1fH.,J='t  ':1
5TH tnnss 1$T'BLncx 1'
aaxAnhsAR,3aHsAnok5_11
 . ' .   _.  mrxwxousn

(By :'-3r:i  -- Amr.)

s 'AND~i.v"

 _s'r.n-rs INDUSTRIAL Imrssmnn-r
" ._ __ A1'-'maxi-*§nn1>HEnT CORPORATION L'I'D.,
")!SIL"FfEi'.'iSE 3-5 CUNNINGHAM man
=.nn3cALonn 52
33?? BY ITS cnmlnnnn

 ':f2"'*.MJé MASTER swnxps PVT LTD

 _ filO.69-E B DRA INDUSTRIRL AREA
ANEICHL TQ HOSUR READ
BPLNGPLLORE 53
REP. 31' THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATDR .
T . . . RESPOHDENTS

I13}? Sri P S MANJUNATH - AHV, FOE R1: R2NGT 513.)

h/



lwvll _uI"lAlI|IAtAllA M HIGH A =HN5H'COUI'I' OF KAINATAKA HIGH COUIIT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA 'HIGH COURT 1

THIS #9 FILED FRAMING T0 DIRECT Tfifi fix ffi I_
MOTIF? THEIR REQUIRESEHT or RS.25G mms '10  O' 

R2 TO PAY THE R1 THE SAID sun or R3L2s@i+"LAxHs

ID} 1.-reurrmron or THE ALL-Eh'G"EDp_ n.EBT.,_"ajE_"1'Hn"'.
PETITIDNER as GEJARANTEED u2gnnrg..--C*rHa:._ -.r;r'.ux_m~giear_:fa--z.fC_A

AGREEEMENT vim: mrmcunz 13.    V

THIS xaIT PETITIUN cefiims ofi run osfitfis ffiis C

BAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLUHIHG : C"

ma p°%ti}=i°m?*OOC  e. Writ or
mandamus'€afi;9$$iF§_g%fi5_O££#§fiN$IeaPondent to
nt3tit'§=f.---  115.250 lath: to

thé éecGndVOiE$§Ofid§h§' to pay the first

rospor1dein;:_%' thé ._ sum or 9.3.250 lath: in_
7 OOOOO _.*»'he alleged debt 5f the

V7Kp§titiQnarCa§ guaranteed under the guarantee

agfeémfinfffifie Annexu:e~B and to release all

" the ,§Ei¢inal documents depcaited by the

uCifpéti;i@har and tar ofihar consequential relief.'

2. The secand respondent ha: barrowad

maniea fram the firat respondent :6 set up an
industry. The second respondent has been

granted financial facility’ of Ra.250A lakhs.

|n/

……. ..r ……………… mun -..uuu_us,_:nnuuuraxa. HIGH” coma or KARNATAKA HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA I-Ilsuocounor KARNATAKA HIGH count 1

i notifiontion was quashed.

The petitioner is the guarantor. n§Nn@5fth§Jn

ancomd respondent has committed dofnfiiti”V?he_t

property of second respondent gas been s§in«5y;

yet another secured -oréditor’ and ,thn~-snid =i

amount is in deposit witfifthg Company Court.

Now, the petitioner npprohonfin tfiat the amount

%in deposit 4in_ suffidinntf_tn1tfiinchnrga the

entire dnfit_ find’ thgrofoto, mthare is no

necessity for the sire: rnspondent to bring

the sale. In fact,

thorn was an a;£¢mp§ to sell under Section 29

__ ot,tho*Stataatinnncia1 Corporation Act (tor

53;:-.~g§.: oi ~7m«§V’*ng=.ce’:. The petitioner had filed

innit? nofiition and in that potitian tho-

Therefore, the

t”kgnbtitionar has sought for ‘the aforesaid

–Q;roiiofa. Now subsequent to the filing of the

“ntfiotition, the firot respondent has initiated

proceedings under Section 31 of the Act

against. the petitioner and in the said

proceedings, he has also sought for attachment

1/