Loading...

Chitradurga District Co Op … vs The Deputy Commissioner on 11 April, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Chitradurga District Co Op … vs The Deputy Commissioner on 11 April, 2008
Author: L.Narayana Swamy
1

IN THE HIGH comm' on KARNATAKA AT   

DATED THIS THE 11¢ DAY 01? APRIL,  % 1:     

BEFORE  

'mm I-!0N'BLE MR..ms'rIcE L 

WRIT PETITION No.5959  
WP=fio.5959I20m'  %    ' j

CHYPRADURGA n1s'rms.j:r%%oo ;a"i=¥"i%%; .  % 
CENTRALBANi(L'l'D:_"    « 
currmmnuon, ~ +  A % ' " %

any as MANAG:nc;{n:       mrmoma

(av sR:Mm%mTa t*i"';1jii>:é!r:f§-- Anikdéawm

1 THE n3wTvLcoMyg:ss¢c§i1ER

 CH!'§'BADURGA"5?2 sex.

2; 
 cymvwimcm '577 591,

  mm-Aw iémuéiizéé.-*rtzA12 01? 00-0? saamrms

cnrmmuma DISTRICT] LIQUIDATOR,
 ism sAM1=s_oE smnmsawmaa URBAN
~  GCHGP. BANK mm, Laxw aazm,
% .f{'2HfFRADURGA 577 501.

,4  1.

4  MANJUSIATBA. Sm :3 c mrpmmu
   "AGED A3<::u'r 39 vxzans,
mo mauwnAxAm cmcw,

   _carz'1%IiuR<aA.

 A  Iiisféxcé' consmma

V j ~ V .DlSPU.'FE REDR%SAL FOR-UM :;
 ..CH!TRADURGA. BY ITS R-EGi8'i'-RAB. .. RESFONBQWB

(BY  R KUMAR---» HOG!' R1-R3 ch BR! -8 V RAMAN- ADV.  R-4)



masm wpa. ARE FILED PRAYINGTO QUA81-I ma o2§*majMTm.
12.9.2005 MARKED AS ANNEXURE E mm mm DlSPRl?§'i"'G'R:.E.1.§__'§.¥T."« _

21.3.2007 MARKED AS ANREXURE H PA$$ED BY mgfa§Hs§wAR.%%.LT A   

These writ petitions coming on   
bcforcthecourttoday, " " "  

   A   

The petmozm have   mm
the orders dated  produced at
Azmexums-E & I-If  in both the writ
pemons am   Tahaaldar. onmmurga
dinectins   in mvmn or me 4»:
map¢ndw?3¥*&1*I P14l.VW<::V.5,f1<,'%:$9/.'V.':..1,0£§7 amass-4,440.00 in favour of
   pnio..59eo/2007 by way of cheque. aw

  the deposit of Rs.5.12,l 2i3.00 in

  Coop. Central Bank ma, hczonmg so an

   Urban Coop. Bank Ltd., Chitradlxrw.

 '    Chitrwurga to Managua Director, Chifimm.

 Coop. Central Bank Ltd., Chitmvtlurga for a total sum of



4

Rs.3,82,056.9O in respect of claim of 49* respondents,   the

writ pettflons. V. ‘A ‘ V.

2. The facts of the case are A 4.7%:

the writ petitions had
Sampige Siddeshwara U:-mx; 0399.: On
failure of the said Coop. mums, the.

411* respondents (kmsumer
Disputes allawed. The 4:!-

said execution reeovezy
certificates of the amsunts. as a
land the Jam Regmmr of
ondered. madam of an
sampige Urban Coop. Bank Ltd., sn Smpige

coop. Bank Ltd., had kept Rs.5,I2,122..34

account with the petmorms bmk. The

Tahsildar issued a show muse notice calling

petitioners bank as show cause. as to why the manna

.VV’jeV4j_锑a:,4s_14;r.iecz*eedbytheDis1:’ictForums11al1notbereea:ret’edfi’omthe
reserve fund. The petifloners hank replied. etaimg that

J

5

since mejuagmn dcbtor bank is liquidated, the is

the auttmrity to settle the assets and mbntm %
CGIIIIQC be ICCOV’flI3d to Day Elm ‘1.’ -. ; vaik ‘ j

the Tahaidlar has passed the

IE I F I I’ the Hi I nflrs ” V

these writ petitions.

respondents ‘

4. The bank is that
cannot pamj directing the pctitiomrs to pay
the 4&4′:-eapmaenta for the mm am the 4%:

‘l’he learned counsel for the respondents submit that peflwmer

1

6

is not mieved pea-‘eon in View of the fact

mspommm deposited the amount with the %
and third rwpondem is a judment ”

deposit amount belonging to

petitioners the amounts were, A’ if at all
anything is W-raved, it is and not the
petitioner. Hence the person md

No.53″ deposited the amounts with an
amounts will be of help whenever they

it; m w P No.5959/N07 is a retired

respondent has failed to honour the claim
to zepagr the depoait amounts. Thereby
had to approach the Conmw Forum and

flle execution. In the said execution the orders which

er§1mpugnedhereinoametobemeed,whichmejuefifiedm.

X

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information