M/S Fiza Developers vs State Of Karnataka on 22 July, 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF K.AR.HATAK.A AT 

Dated this the: 22"" day ofJu1_3r, 2008
EEFORE

THE HOIPELE MR. JU$TICE..K,_KUMILR' Ti  "

Wxit Pctifion No. 10143 of 2993 iifiml-RAES3"~    '

BETWEEN:

M] s Fim. Developers

&, inter-Trade Pvt. Ltd., V , 

A Company incoxpuztaimi um_  that _V
(inmpanies Act 1956 and havingits:-.V.1' 
Rc:gistered Officfi at 119.23] 1   _  '
Residency Road _ . _    _   
}3aflg~''3.'n:::re~~25 3. i;;;_- 4 .    'V  
Repmsented  h    ' ~
Mr. B. Mohammad   '_  
Mrs. A.K. Frmsia  "  - '

     Sangameah, M13 Hcgde Associates

  1 %%st.m g;';<a1maka

I3-a=,pa1ftt11¢1%;'t :31' C.0----operation
By i1z:sV".¥?1i:1cipa1 Sacra-taxy
 M S Bgsjlding
 " Bangalore

  :"--V;*'X3'§:istant Regisfiar of

F C30-operativé Societies
" and Rt:covt:):y C){iiot:1'
Amanath ('.9-operative Bank Ltd,,
N R Road Branch
Bangalore V



3 The Sale Gfictzr
M] s Amanath Co--operative: Bank Ltd.,
N R Roan! Branch
Bangalore

4 Staci Range Trading Company Ltd.,
No.8, Gemgamachari
C Muiilzagar   
Fmngalnre   «_ 1   H '
By its Prop: Nusrath Fathima '":.'...:§:€Ae<.3poi:ari£§I=.._*.ts .  '
This Wm Petition is filmi 1:119:15:-:'1--~ Articles 226  sf
the Cezxstitution of India, praying is 'tguash 'the'- Taffiaiihmcnt

xzaotice dated nil, passea in 2.9. No.«¢§9'}2oe5-o6'1sm;ea By the
1*cs;1o11dt:11L-3 hcjtttin (Prod ugtédgis   

This Wfit Petifion mming an fm§'1Mpre11§fi:i;a§yV%_hean'ng this
day, the Court matte the f1lcwc»=i-:2-..g::f V     '

 

The'petit'1':§-nécr has  this Writ Pefifion sacking a
§,v:;ii:_ cf  f(§f"v:;3.1.a$hi11g Anncxurc-J attaching the

:§..moa¥éb1e_  ..}::ea.1'ing No.25/1, Residency Road, Civil

 "  Statioiz,  V'

2.   0f the petitioner is he is; the (name: of the

 prdpérty having acquzired the sanfie undczr a mgistcred

  d_ée££ datcd 11.3.2004. The pctitiomtr has not borrowed

VT $413;-»vzz:;onc3* fimm Amanath Cooperative Bank Limited. No

k/%



3

pxoeeedinge are izlitiated against the petitioner by the said
bank and no awaxti is passed, When that being the ease, in
pI1I'p0I'1'£?£i exeeution of an award passed, the property of the

petitioner is attached and new it is attempted to be brought to

sale. Therefore, after eerviee ef the attachment 016133,,

petitioner filed his objections to the same as per  ' 

instead of considering the said objectiens'  L"

'tI'yi:r;1g to bring the property to sale.   

approached this Coufi: for the  h V" .

3. The ie under Rule 38(2)(C) of
the Kanzataka C4i§o_pe3"a€ii;e Eoeieiiee Rules. Rule 41 provides
for__Vinvesfig5;§§on. of  to: property attached. Where the

  a tl:1;'3:d paJ'ty--s1:ra11ge:r is attached in

 exeeufiimV"T.%:f passed, such. a thin} pereen can

 a claim ,5: -ofzjeefion to the attachment on the ground

' "  is not liable to such attaehxaent, If each a

 .':c:1aii:3«orV'o33;7:eefion is flied, the saie officer shall investigate the

V,  the claim to the extent Iaieizag the claim made. Proviso

'K/A

 W03'; objection and make an order either rejecting or



to sub-ruie (1) of rule: 43 pmvidcs that the sea}: ofliccr may
nzfuse to investigate the claim if he considers that the claim 01:

objectim-:1 ;i:s fiivoious or made on or after the: data fixed for 

51Ib-I"li1€ (2.) provides, Where ihe: pmpcziy to which the   '7' 

objection relates has bat;-,1) advcrizisexi for sajc,  _  u 

may postpone the sale pending the i11vcsti$$;fion9.i." tiif; :3 A'

objccfion. Sub~ru}e. (3) pmvides, where-.3 cla§i::_ 6:' an  
is preferred the party against whom  is jifiaéie 3313}?
institute: a. suit Within six monfijé f1'c>:1;fh d.£_:z'{t¢"0f the cgrdér to

establish the right  {n"fiE1evi3mpcrty in dispute,
but subject to Vibe any, flit? order shall be:

COHCIUSZWE.  VA _ ' .  " , 
4. "§'h;n¢;:fo1*e, t;3;I;dc2r.f:13e'v.Kai'nataka Cooperativte Societies

Rui?§$§;--._'  :,.As21n;:iab<§r~é1t{i"'vpro(:edu1*e is prescribed for

i:1ve$t$g_aij§§;i' T.  (if E1 person whose pmperty is

 '_'$a ttac_11.é&#I'i. execution of an award. Though afiar

_ of attaéfiment the pctifionetr has ymfened objecfions as

  the tenor of the ebjections make it clear he

    ac.t:ion against the rccovexy ofieer if thc racovery

\/



oficer do not stay his hands. That is not an objection or a

claim pefifion as contemplated under law. The recovery 

would be performing a quasi judicial function. if :91   "

his property is wrongfuiiy attached, it is open  

appmaeh the reeovezy efieer and eentendV'15efi51*e 1})et<.tLi$ 

property has been wrongfully attaclred   

cmly he is the owner of the property also Vtirat Iaethesvvbétiiéit
sufiered any decree in exeewtigxn "file  is
attached, If the recovery ofieer iMs_e_ }€£t:V:Vx§a¥LtiEd raise the

attachment. There is,    party to

threaten the 3e1;:r;:\é'eI"yV  would be taken, as he
is only peIfo1min§e§tet.ute1_3t  eonfexred on him under
the,   Sociefies Act, 1959. Therefore,

Anjrexzirewii e{5rrrnVe}.tA."%*;e treated as an objection or a ciaim

   «A  

W H "    A. V53 the pefifioner has an alternate and efficacieus

it ie inappropriate for this Court te entertain" this

    However, it is open to the petitioner to ledge 3 c1aJm'

  'objection in accordance with law anti request the recovery ,4



ofiecr to raise the attachment and pending investigafion of 

claim to seek for stay of the further pmcecdings iuc1udi1;g~--t11§'__'__L'  A' 

sale. of the propeziy. If any such application     %

mcvvexy oficcr is boumri to consider the s{amc"j1;.V   X

with law. With thtzse observations, t11¢:_W:t*it Pcfifign is  yv " 
6. As the sale: ia fixed on 24.?_;i%{}O8,  if'.__ti1r:_Vc:3"Vis' 

lodged tomorrow (23.7.20{)8), th;%.;r'e:r:<3xr§:.$ shz§i}'c@31,sai¢§ier

the r&q11e3tfor ijizterim prayer     ' _
7. The High C-ouIft._ ofice .._i:=3 _d.irt:(:i;t:§;i ita.  all the

papers filed alékng with 1:0' the wtitioner to enable

him tn file the   " 
         Sd/-
 .....