GI-I
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 23% DAY OF JUNE, _
: BEFORE :
THE HOIVPBLE MRJUSTICE D.AV..SHY.LEII§'D'Ii?R; I{'JMAR, I I
w.P.O.w299o/2O0,§{£*?E§~I2Es!
BETWEEN: I I I I
KOTA AGRICULTURAL CO-QPERATIVE DAM;
L834 HEAD OFFICE EAIIAI<ARAEOuDHA
KOTA, UDUPI--576221 _ ; I *
REP BY ITS GENERAL MAEAOER * A
SR1 K YAGNA .rIARAI(AEA ,AI'I*HAL *
AGE 54
A % Q % é PETPFIONER
(Eg%AIs,V$AE;DHTA<EAO,- ::§FfJR SR1 : K M NATARAI)
ANILI: I I I I
1 STATE OF KARIIIATAKA' "
REP BY sEcR5:rAR'I'..-~
DEi?I°';QF 00-'-QPERATEVE SOCIETIES
- ._ VIEHAIIA SOUDHA... »
.BANGALOR*E_
2 II)AI{S1~II'hIA I<AII~NADA SAIIAKARI
'SAKKARE-"Oj-KEIRKHANE LTD
EEAMEAVAR
3 RE? BY. MANAGING DIRECTOR
~~ RESPONDENTS
:AsHA M.KUMBA.RGERIMATH, I-IOGP. FOR R1;
srzj. RAGHAVENDRA, ADV. EOE M] S. BHOOPALAM
_ ASSOCIATES, ADVS. FOR R2)
THIS W.P. FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 as 227 OF
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING To QUASH THE
IMPUGNED AUCTION NOTIFICATION AT ANNEXURE-A DT.
. . ……..m. ‘HF! nnmununnn rI:urI £.,£,4),;u§£’f OF KARNATAKA I416!-I COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HE
24.1.9008 PUBLISHED BY THE RESPONDENT IN
UDAYAVANI NEWSPAPER III’. 25.1.2008.
2
This petition coming on for orders this –day, the
Court made the following: .
._Q_I§_._Il.?…..I;.i?.
The second respondent
Sahakari Sakkare
application LA. II/08 pmyjllg
dated 22.2.2003 passed it i
2. The Writ peeeeee-.;goe Co-operative
Bank money to the
second a’ land measuring about
favour of the petitioner.
3. it writ petition that the second
industry having failed to repay the
[ the matter had been taken before the
r dispute between the petitioner and the
respondent which resulted in certain award and
.. the eitecution of the award was pending.
. It is ave-Ired in the petition that in the meanwhile,
the second respondent borrower had caused issue of
..-……. …….e yyunl vr mmnrnam HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA. me:-1 cover or MRNAIAKX
; publication proposing atendergeuxn-saie __of _ the very
property mortgaged in favour of the petitioner–oo-
operative bank on a as is where is basis :¢;agter an
Newspaper dated 25. 1.p2()O8:’ ‘ ~ .. ‘aetion
on the part of the vvtit
petition is filed of th;e”auction sale
notice at piayed for stay of
Annexure-A. the
interim orderi. tgmmed staying
further action
5. respondent has entered
.. and an application praying for
:,(A’ap’ ”
order.
ta I””hav’§.I1eard”‘: Sri. Raghavendra learned counsel
Tor the second respondent-app1icant and
Sandhya Rao appearing for the petitioner.
The writ petition itself is not tenable for the reason
t ” that the petitioner-bank has questioned the action of
3 the seoond respondent a private person and a customer
advertisement a copy of which
Annexure–A to the writ petit:io1’1A; AV
on nnnn.-………. w. .
4
of the bank who had borrowed certain amount from the
petitioner–bank and for securing the -.
that the property proposed to be ”
Annexum-A was mortgaged.
8. _ While the V’
is open to it in the and on
the security of the action
which the fbefore the court
being person, there is no
oceasionjfott’ to’-inteifeze with such action in
nlun uvunz ur mmmmm 3-mid-t mumr or xnmnwnm HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA HIGH comer or MRNATAKA HIGH
tl1eWI’itjuris(ii§3t°i3¥1″ to
9. It is for toe interim order dated
the writ petiion itself is
to such rights and
Vv 1e’ s, fifimch petitioner may have in law.