WP NO12665/2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2009 = BEFORE THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE _AJ.IT_J.GUNJAI§ . ' WRIT PETITION No.I2665/iQo6:j,r.;IxéI~I:S1%*cj"'- 7 BETWEEN: MR.C.G.PA'I'IL S /O G.G.PATIL AGED ISIYEARS, I PROPRIETOR M /S.KALME'S.H'wARA :-j_>OUL--TRIf 'FARMS ADARAGANCHE TALUK~»HUBLI I " ' = KARNATAKA STATE, ".""..§I='EjTITIONER (BY SRI.E.V.PA'I__*III,";A.I5'\rL}. V ' AND: 1. THE ..KARNATAKA' 'STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION H.O.NO:1/-1 THIMAYYACV ROAD, .RANOAI.O.RE,~ * ' .. REPRESENTED BY. ITS GENERAL MANAGER (DIVISION-NORTH). RC2: T " ' RARNATAKA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, DITA-RWATJVERANCN, PUNE-BANGALORE ROAD REPRES-ENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. 1: 3. THE KARNATAKA STATE FIN-ANCIAI. CORPORATION, . DHARWAO BRANCH, I s 4_ REFRESENTEED BY ITS > ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER. ...REsRONDENTS (RY SRI.HE-MANTH CHANDANGOUBAR, ADV FOR R1, I SRLBIPIN HEGDE, ADV FOR R2 AND 3) WP No.12665/2006 THIS LPETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT"~._TI:IE FIRST AND THIRD RESPONDENT TO DROP ALL PROCEEDINGS
PURSUANT TO THE NOTICE ISSUED SECTION 29/
KSFC ACT ANNEXURES B AND D AND CLOSE THI3″I..O;’\_N’
RECEIVING THE LEGITIMATE DUES AND ETC., _ *
THIS PETITION COMING ON FORAAPRELINEINARYIHEARINGA
IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE «THE FOI.LO_V’JIN’G«:
1. On 26.11.1996, the petiittgyttgt availedV1oaI1_’Af0ept«t1.nning
a poultry farm business S-ma1I.’SCa1I_¢ Industrial
Scheme. Suffice it to”~.say,’R*. defaulted in
Payment of the I<10«..11th1}""'i1'1.s£3I1Ir11'?:?1tsR..é'+II§Cit:has become a
sticky Ioan. . The possfesisedmthe property u/s 29
of State Finaiiicialpp C.orporat_ion 'Act (for short 'the Act'). It
appearsidtiring "t1ie petitioner has paid a sum of
Rs.5()–,0()O/notwithsta-nciing the huge loss incurred by him
. I -in the poultry business; This writ 'petition is filed to ward off
,__the.proceedingsiriitiatod by the Corporation U./S 29 of the
Acttandv. .a1is,o'i::for quashing the notice dated 01.09.2006
*._cal1ing_Ii1pon the petitioner to deposit a sum of
"«i.I'_I2s:.I"I_«,50,557/–. Apparently, quashing of taking possession
W? No. 3.2665/2006
of the property u / s 29 of the Act under Annexurewil) 4d.oes_'inot
arise.
2. Mr.F.V.Patil submits that the 8′
representation for one time settlement ho\:iVexr’erf’.,tt1..e
is not considered. A A 8
3. Learned counsel for the re.s};ioLn_de-nt is not in aiiposition
to submit as to whether the “s_ai{d’}representation has been
considered or not: V
4. Be that as _fact«–1*e:nain’sVVthat the petitioner
has not the”1oan_”‘tai<en by him. indeed
Annexure–B,_ a dated 28.08.2006 would
indicate that~,th'e pietitioneriiis due a sum of Rs.18.25 lakhs.
¢_ Sine'-e7:.ti1:e'petitioner..ha.s given a representation for one time
sewttiementit the Corporation shall consider the same if the
C'ronic Assets Resolution Scheme is still in force. Otherwise,
'V it .of3er1.Vx for the Corporation to consider the said
"u's»rep're.sentation under the rewconstructive liability scheme.
— C’om1:i1iance of this order within a period of 4 weeks from
WP No.12665/2006
5. Petition stands disposed of accordingiy.
6. As the main matter itself
Misc.W.61719 / 2009 does not surviye .’
the same stands disposed of. .