High Court Karnataka High Court

M/S Gokulam Chits vs Mr N B Chandra Shekar on 21 January, 2010

Karnataka High Court
M/S Gokulam Chits vs Mr N B Chandra Shekar on 21 January, 2010
Author: Ravi Malimath
1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Dated this the 215' Day Of January 2010 '
BEFORE _ __ _ _
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE RAVI MALIP"*'A'¥Tl~i"AIvA.'V"*~:  
WRIT PETITION IvO.12508/2008 (GM§QPC)   I

BETWEEN:

M/S GOKULAM CHITS V _

& FINANCE CO, PVT LTD.,._ 

NO 356, ARCOT ROAD, 
KADAMBAKAM 

CHENNAI-24 v".fi 5' »_
REPRESENTED BEFORE_THIS1;f  
HON'BLE COURT BY ITS Au'I'H:ORI. I'E.t2v.RERSON
MR. RAJESH +<LIMAR-SQ» A  
AGED ABOU_T"_'32 »i:EARS_is _ _  
S/O K4.O~.,4SRIIEDHARA.N'NAIR  " 
ACCOUNTS ASS__ISTANT;. _   »

 ****     ..PETITIONER
 _ _ I'I'._»v[E§y"S¥'i~..'vS'i?i_§ji'JEiS-B.R, Advocate]

1 MR "ALB CHANDRA' SHEKAR
. IS/O I<"THIr«:.M'API~.A RATALI
 MAJOR IN' AGE V
' S;-AIRAM ENTERPRISES
 _AUSAN~._COMPLEX,
 _ NI-"_RFSHA'I.AYA ROAD
"a.AIIOERMANGALORE

  GQPAL, S/O MR NAGAPPA
.. IVIABOR IN AGE
"SHANTHI NAGAR, PADAVU POST

MANGALORE
..RESPONDENTS

{By Ss'i.R.E3.DeS%1pande, Advocate for R2]

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER DATED 20.06.2008 AND CONSEQUENTLY ORDER DATED
24.06.2008 PASSED BY THE FIRST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT 8:
SESSIONS JUDGE, MANGALORE IN EXECUTION CASE
NO.178/2001 AS PER ANNEXURE-C.

RAM



2

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMANARY
HEARING THES DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLL.OW§NG:_..__

ORDER

Being aggrieved by the order

dismissing the Execution petition’, the«d*ecre’e._’holderd,.’ih.?§St’

fiied the present petition.

2. Sri.Srinivasaii§–;V:i’e_ar’«nerig~T for theuxpetitioner
contends that t’hiev’peti:ti~oirier» in attending
the Court date for the
unforeg_eg;iv.V.ci’rci_s:ms’:anficexgtt not be present.

Hence, the oVrd’er«~..reqi1’i’rieTsto–be recalied.

“3; On thegotherihand, Sri.Umesh submits that he has

» no _Vob_isectio¢Vn’–..to allow this petition.

hearing the counsel, Fm of the considered

‘viieyv that the writ petition requires to be aliowed. The

Zr-Zciiaiiim of the decree holder requires to be considered

‘appropriately and the rejection of the Execution Petition

wouid lead to untoid ioss to the petitioner. In view of the

dismissal of the Execution petition the counsel for the

-aw,/\m

1
K