IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 13?" DAY OF DECEMBER';'--2Qj1§ _
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE MORANZLSHKl§}'M'i'~.!}§6OVU_D.£§'R.i.
WRIT PETITION NO;.I:f%078/2'Oi_O 165%)
BETWEEN: t
1. M/s.A|fin Exports Prtivate Ltd'; A} V
34 A & B, KIADB Industrial.'_A:{ea--"~.. ..
Manipal-5746104 . ' 7
Rep.by its"MZ%:1n.agin"g Director.'
3ayant:A'ro'ra " ' »
2.. 3aya.nt,_A"ro_ra'«:_;:;,_ ~ 'V
S/{).R.S'.Ar;o.ra _
Aged 59 -,rear§vrt" ~
Prema, *4~2€":5C V.
Mangaiaau Colony "
M--a.nipa|~'S'Z6'1wG4 '
.L2[dupi Dist. " _____ .. PETITEONERS
» ;(VB»y_SriA_ K,Ctjan__dranath Ariga, Adv.,)
'V 1. .44IVI,/.s'";vKVa.rantaE<a State Financial
Corporation
.. " *---1./1, Thimmaiah Road
'w,B.anga|0re
Rep.by its Managing Director
2. The Asst.Genera| Manager' 2 "
M/s.Kai-nataka State Financial
Corporation
3"' & 4"' Floor, Anantha Towers
Court Road,
UdLipi--S76 101 .. RESPONDENTS----___
(By Sri Bipin Hegde, Adv.,)
This writ petition is filed und’er*-ArtifiiesV’.”2iZ6_ aind;227 C
of the Constitution of India, praying:-to fqu’as’h..the*e:i
notice dated 26.10.2009, vide Annexo_re–V, etc.- .0 «. ‘
This writ petition cortiin.,t_:i”~~on for .pr’e|..irfiinVa;r§i”hearing”
in B–Groop, this day the Court°madeV the’fo§io’wingg:–
Petitioners’–ha\re’V’so-oght”fof*–quiashing the demand
notice dated 26x’;i10.20092K.{ide_”-~’i’Annexure–F, and have
alS0 isiougifitifoiijcezirtain*othei- releifs.
2″.._”:'”5h_e1″rveC~o_td.s’revea| that the petitioners had
v’7D:o:’Vrowedincervtaiinv”ioans from the resDondent–|<SFC.
not paid in time. Uitimately, the
"0.of-4Seic_ured"§piroperty was put to auction. At that point of
V5
time, the petitioners herein approached this Court by
filing WP.No.12502/2008. During the pendency of the
said writ petition, the petitioners had deposited £4-,O.61
lakhs as interim measure. The
Corporation on appearance, filed toe
caiculation, (Annexure~S toT__
indicating therein that the»i'petitio'n.ers
sum of ?6,08,770/~ to show l,thew_bona«me. Memo of
calculation furthe.; ff.,t:ha'tf: tjhe OTS amount
requested byfthe :p'eti't:iV(;n.er.s~__'was,…'"?40,61,O0O and
interest c_thé'reon,#i"rro4.«ji"10.,6.2007 to 9.3.2009, works
out toifl40,67",'7Z2/-':'""_,»s.'«F.urther charges were levied.
Thais, the totaE__a_rrears, inclusive of further charges
,was?AS4'1,'n6..9A',1.89/~. The total amounts to be paid by
'th'e"'petit7io__n.ers after deducting the amounts already
paid"'?:"Y'L.them was ?6,08,770/«-. At the time of disposal
o:ftl_1e said writ petition, this Court observed thus:–
[#5
"3. On perusal of the order~shveet"'»v.
dated 29.7.2009 it is clear_.c.._ifhVa'_t4:1:*V
pursuant to the acceptance of oirie
settlement scheme V
already paid a sum
directed by the COL_ii't". dispo'-te be
only in regard €6,08,_77'0./–
therefore ie.arned'”JLidge”=-has permitted
the peti’tio’ner’ the
respondent-‘coroorationAllvtotfishow some
hva*yi’i?Q” regcjard’ ‘to”‘the payment
and the balance
‘was oifiiiy :’§”5;08,7_70/V? and the order-
‘ treads that respondent-
‘vcorporaltiori a sympathetic view in
the ..V:rnatter in the event petitioner
ieiquestsbbbefor reconsideration. In view
aiiie order-sheet dated 29. 7.2009 this
V A is of the opinion that writ petition
has to be disposed of directing the
respondents to consider the request of
the petitioners by taking a lenient view
V5
as stated in the ordensheet dated
29.7.2009.
4. With the above observations,-.___
this petition is disposed of. ” T
3. Pursuant to the said order, _
seem to have made an appiicatio’n”=–:b’_efoVte’–_
respondent–Corporation to take :ienien’t._ ‘vi:ew”‘i7n..A’ti.i_e
matter. However, the resp’o.ndeh’t~Co.rpo.re’t.ijo*ntisjsuecii.i’
notice as per Annexure–\i,——-tii”atet:’..LA26iiO.2O.Q§ to the
petitiiohersti’t;,|at’if53/’i*ng~that«’t’he”V:petitioners’ account is
not not in Doubtful case in
11IAV.Cate<;:j'or3,:i oonsequentiy, the respondent-
Co*r_iod=tatit;;i_ intihiétved the petitioners, that the total
:VlViV.«=.a-_tfi3i'I'itgfilivsvi§f2i«11,28,248/– with interest payable from
1Ci';..9.2_'O'O-'§ui:;' The said notice is called in question in this
.4 , 'A ' —- ~wr.i t petiiti on. W
4. The respondent-Corporation cannot go
behind the order of this Court vide Annexure-U, dated
2.9.2009 passed in WP.No.12502/2008, mentioned
supra. This Court while deciding the said
has concluded that the dispute is only…w,iui_j:”_n.Vv§’:ega_rd3_t’o–,:
”
hack’/Ank_
petitioners shall also be directed to clear the__,entire
ioan with interest thereon. Accordingly, the
order is made:–
The impugned demand
at Annexure~V, stands qL’ia’s.hed.”=.The petiAtio–ra..er«s are-”
directed to pay thereon at
the agreed rate, of memo of
calculation yvirie; payment. The
entire dues petitioners within §_i_g_(
dues are not paid by
the p’etit«ioners;V’V’j_:~ifv«.._;:s-»..:’open for the respondent-
Corporation tvoiproceediin accordance with iaw.
Vi/’rn~i.t:v’pfetition is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
IUDGE