-l..
Ia: THE HIGH mum' 0? mammmm M
DATED THIS mm 5" BA! or 2¢ovm~mzrg,__"§é'a¢8 ff T
swans
was 21::-n'3LE Hr. Jtzstnzcs I{;.L§:~§aNJU:§;;::ii'v '~ V
wan mrxrzon 1~:o.16e":t§7;:2oo7" '
BETWEEN:
3.
M/s B.K.S.Maxulasidflappa'& Ema3y,',
Axeaanut ezuhanta, W ', v_:V-"»%>f."
R/by its Partxxexq A.v.su~w:ax;;a..'w;o'-
ELM. Vearabha'ci1':;1;ah , "._65=Z yea'; ,' u
R/at Nb-3?9;qS&val3n9a'RoafirX
Ravindrnagax;_Shimng$;_"a: "
R/by hé:E"GBA;i' aoiiéier Veéfabhadxaiah
Sfo 1%te_B.K;Eg,fiarfiléaiddappa,
74 years;_Rfat §é,22G;_sava1anga
Road, Rmrindrazaagfagrx '
Shirnnga. L - A ' pzzrxtxrxonnn
(B"y;.,As;1ir<:¢até" ':3::j,__,__S:anath Kumar She-tty)
'=_1:=;2».=D::'« --.
'; §he fifiutygéégistxar of
'£9-operative Socxetxes,
viiistrict,
Shimoawi.
,VTha Secretary,
.'M:lnad Areanut Marketing
' C¢-aperative Saciety,
_fShimoga--l.
The state af Kaxnataka,
R/by its Secretary,
Co-operative Departxnent,
M.S.Builciing, Br.AnbadIcax Veedhi,
Bangalore--1 . . . = H ' ._
(&mt.A$ha Kumbargerimmtt, ECG? £¢x_§4ijs 3jg'L
(Advccata Sxi.Doshraj for 252);
This writ Petition is fiied under Art$.226 5
22'! of The Constitution 9:_6 vI£:1ei,_§.a the
order éatad 3a.e:29o7:* pasgaa, in "§avis1on
N¢.17f199§ on the file }o£f;Karna£aka Appellate
Tribunal. at Bangalore vlde
This Petxtian is ,c_£;&nia§~ '_'on' for prelimir:ax'y
hearing in S}-G1:§;«':p .th.'i[':;:_ V ,._ *tha""Court nude the
£.}..}.owi::g: '
K"a%Rmn'E R
Petiiipher 'hair:-_ ".E:x§i¢:'3:w-ati loan from R-2 Co-
--v..'¢pea:a§fi;,ivTa' Soc'i'e~ty_.___ Sinae petitioner did not
a dispute was raised by 3-2
bgsagg "R¥1,=§§&ax Sec.7G of» the Karnataka Cow
V _upetatiw§'3acieties Act ia Dispute No.40?f96--97.
:pr<.':md.:i.ngs, petitioner filed a xzaemo
. that the dispute raised by the respondent
%”*uwaé nct naintaxnable in View of sec.43(4} of the
Act. Said 2% has been rejected. by K-1
8/
.4.
BBSALINGKYEB K9?RKL VS. SKI KDTT3RE$WAR AND C”.
(1972 (1) Mys.L.J.–555). Relying mpg ft§Q_
aforesaid judgment , he requests the .;.V _
ciisxniss tha petition .
4 . At this stage, counsel
auhznits that even suczh is M
whether the dispute jams be
considered anti ;i.:E after
the liznitatnlon periocy. would
not eI1’£1:’E4ém ‘l”L’t§”.:lvfj;,he. :’EV VP.-2 . Whether the .\m)n.w
dispute raised by’-. ‘ «a;1:e__ kgsfgondents was barred La:
can the <:}.a1:'é~«.VcsfVc;3:1;ia<a.§.r1:i"§xg sanction and even if
..*s;:c2: A' ….. ..barrec.i by tithe, whethex
'::;u;E;iEi'aj.e:;_t'~A¢::a;fis¢a§ was shown by R-2 to condone the
U.' ::s::£§maire«:: under Se.-<:.'?0(A) caf the
Ka,rna£:e5ca;—-VA Ctbioperative Societies Act, has to be
fn3.y in the dispute and not by this
‘_'<:Q'li3:'V'ti". As a. Hatter of fact, petitionexs have
a3ap;;:Voached this court on account of aware filing a
on 25.1.1999 requesting Rn]. to rejexzt the
8/
-5-
dispute raised by R-2. Therefore, R~3g**–3i;z;.::l’;_’__j’
opportunity ta consider these points §;i_.V1′:it:g It-rzz.T:s’*
not even urged by the L-:»’:;.n:¢e:
filad. by the petitioner a,:1.c:-nebee§_–v_%;éje=¢£.;éd~,% ‘
it :;,s always for the ;:he
question of lixnitatsggn “R-_-.1 such
questican is raised, j,.-S decide: the
same in mzcordginge sfr.”iii1′;- it is
alga open 11_3Veéf&’ Lfi ‘Turf the
Act if t_1;_g~: 1:;’§V1s.m:L2:at1on on the
date ozfigv fianction. If sufficient
cause: .7;s ‘s;£J_:1é-Evsrn {he delay, it is always
open far LR-1 ‘:19 cohdfiinethe same.
observation, this petition is
Iudqe
A’ 2.2/221193