IN THE: HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA "
CIRCUIT BENCH AT IDHARWAD M
QATEX) THIS THE Q1»: 'APRII1, 280%; =
BEFORE
THE HQNBLI: MR.J1i:3%IfI€tE AJI'i' q.csI.ur1§II_AI;_;""--wV
WRIT PE'1'I'{'iOIji.i\IO. 62415;;/.2<3Q9(GI9I-*I{sIéfCI _ 5
BETWEEN:
MALLAPPA .\ V
s/<3 GURUS1~IP%:NT:}éL?I°,"I .RAMA(:'I1RI '
AGE 46 YEA.-I=2's," I's*I_* 'IIAVEIQI,
PROPRIETOR QI:*.I~~».__' . .
M/S NAEIEIEN BoARn1Nc;_.AIxID._.
LODGINGVvRESTAURAN'1'.b_ =
(EY;VS1'fl.~,1A' PL}éH,I§Av.r;*I'I I211. IESIIONGADI, ADV.)
» AND:
.1)'-I'.frIIt:'b.*aIvE§Ii§:;L MANAGER,
' KARNATAKA STATE FINANCIAL
'"«CO¥s§'PO-RJXTION, M.G.ROAD,
BANIQALORE 560 001.
BRANCH MANAGER,
KARNATAKA STATE FINANCIAL
CORPORATION, P.B.'ROAII}, HAVERI
581 110, DIST. HAVERI
PETITIONER
...RESPONDEN'E'S
(BY SR3. HEMANT R. CHANDANGOUDAR, ADV. FOR C/R2.)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 225 AN!) 227
OF' THE C10NS'I'1'I'UT'ION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THE
: 2 :
AC'I'¥ON ON THE PART OF THE RESPONDENTS INVOKENG {US
29 OF’ THE KSFC ACT, 1951 IS ILLEGAL AND CONTRARY TO THE
PROVESIONS OF’ LAW AND SET ASIDE THE MAHAZAR RE__¥”€f)RT
VIBE ANNEXUREJ) BT17/3/09 3*!’ ALI..OW¥NG THIS W.P.”AND
THIS PE’I’1’1’ION comma ON FOR PREL1mNA_R’;?”Haavgfim; _
THIS BAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
Q__B….D…….i’.§…_R
Mr. H1:-manth R. chanda;;go1;c1.§:~,
entered caveat. Notice on rukwaivwébdv.
2. The respondents _vsa:;1.c’:*i_’i£A>T_1::1c”:d Vfiioan of
establishing a medium
liotél Haveri ciisizict. Suflice it to
say that thcife Vdéfault on the part of the petitioner
V’ in Aof iiistaiimcnts. The mspondents proceeded
‘V 29 of the Karnataka State Fan’ ancial
‘j__Ai;-t and possessed the property. This writ
petitiozgits Vfiieé to declare the acticn on the part of the
V’ “~:Lf”rAAcf9L;L§endcnts invoking Section 29 of the Act as illegal etc.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submim that since the respondents have possessed the unit
on 17/03] 2009, the petitioner is not in a positican to run the
:3:
business. She further submits that the pcufiop:«§§¥”is’ _
to deposit certain amount towaxtig the V
submits that the petitioner has; V2 ”
Rs.4 130,000/—.
5. Mr. I~ieI11a;:;;A~.j*;_”‘:._R, tbatfieator for
respondent No.2A$ubmit,3_ iIt:1:(31=’;ff8(1.”E}vie’>.}Q{:1’iit3i0B€T has paid
Rs.-4, 1oo,o0o,.{‘-‘ A imetestt ‘V of Rs.45,00{)/ –
towards
V’ ‘–IrV1de¢'<i"» noticed that the KSFC is a
Wfhicii is required to advance loan to
ha-fitauti' busine§s;" **** Vlndeed it should not become an
1'un13–. 111' g the business. The fact remains that
has already paid a sum of Rs.41,()€),O()0/-.
'E'11e'f:«3.<:it' whether the said amount could be adjusted towards
A ~?_"' «principal or the interest, that is required to done at a
Eatct point of time. For the present, if the petitioner pays
tzertain amounts, the respondents are required to hand over
the possession of the unit to the petitioner. V.
the following outlet is made:
The order passed of via 1
set aside. The petitioner K a risum of
Rs.4,G0,000/ {Rupees a of two
weeks fir:-133, today. On shall
dsiiver the ijqf petitioner. The
petitioner of Rs.4,00,000]-
(Rupees of eight weeks from
the dateof ~ ‘sion ofthe u111t’ .
” _;P”es.tiouV see of accordingly. 5 _ 344
Sc!/S
Iu&g?