High Court Karnataka High Court

M/S Pancharathna Industries … vs The Recovery Officer-I Debt … on 24 May, 2011

Karnataka High Court
M/S Pancharathna Industries … vs The Recovery Officer-I Debt … on 24 May, 2011
Author: J.S.Khehar(Cj) And H.G.Ramesh
. m

1 .

IN THE: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA 

DATED THIS THE 24% pm: OF '.f\é'£z%'=E1:'i::;';ff}'i'::1 - _  
PRESENT   _    
THE: HONBLE, MR.J,S.§E§E3fis_';R-r,_ _CH1'E;If', JUST;-__CfiE'1 "._

THE HONBLE3 MRxJ--I:f$TICEf  
Writ Petiticyn No.383:§3 /_2QQ8(GfVi.~DRHT5}
B€t\¥€€f1 '  'V  -- 

1. M/s Pancharathna VIi1du;3.trig:--:s*"'*~.v  ., 

Represented by i'f;s 1?a1'jt,11<:4r"«.f*,_

Vinod  N   f   
S/0 we N.afa;si_ma._;3_eth   '

A§Z%d ab«o:u::"A;4o  .% " 

  "  

RV:/E1 _6~942fO€_; 10/ 1B

Kédial Bial '\ffi11age.  " ¢ " 

Kuhn' Ferry Read.   '

Mannfagudd, 'VM:uj1gzL10re~3

..  EC :"i1;brafnar1.i.. Raju
_ ' S/'0;iatie__Changamandadi
 j "  abgut 48 years
 V()€;vcf'Bu::=.i11éss, R./0 N0g1?'8
_ V36t_h'C.1':*e~ E



2""

l:1::%5vW::a/x/»~xtl«é,§

la

IV

E»?

Syndicate Bank

A nationalised bank

having its Head Office at Manipal
Enteralia Branch, Mangalore
Rep by its Chief Manager
P.V.Mallya : ._ 4
Asset Recovery Management.-,8ra;'1;s::'h 
Jasrnine Mansion, l Floor 0'
J.C.Road, Bangalore 1" 

The Manager

Corporation Battle p  
Asst. Recovery Manpage'rneV:_ot B.r'apn'eh
Moaoad, Mangalor€'~5?E3' oo_1_   " 

DJ

... Respondents

[By Sri Radesn  s  Pai, advs., for R-2;
Sri V.B.R:v;-xvishanléar, 'ad__\v/.1.   ' R---l served)

This _W'r_iii 'Petition f1ledvvv_u5nder Articles 226 and 227
of the CoI';stitt1'tion Vof India praying to quash the
proclainatiola oi'»nlot_icle 'dated 02.02.2008 issued by R»-l
produced at._Ar:rV1_e;~:i1.re# 0' and et(:.,

5'-l'his ll?Vrit"P'etit§or;1. coming on for hearing this day,

 n   Lltistjce niad.(:..t.l:~le following:

ORDER

(Oral)

Noneiappeared for the petitioners in the pre~lunoh

sessitonppi None has appeared on behalf of the petitioners

in the post-luncl’1 session. T he instant writ petition is

_ accordingly disrnissecl for non-prosecution.

2, The course of action adopted by this Court is
not readily aceep’:al3le by the learned eonnsel for the

respondents, iflaf-S1″E11.I{i:l”1 it is ztonterrsjleafi by the leareed

3
counsel for the respondents, that the petitioners misused
the judicial process for personal gains. In View of the
statement made to this Court by the learned eounse} for the

respondents, we hereby grant liberty to the resgéonfeiefzts to

initiate proceedings against the petiti0ne’:4S’§ be

avaflabie to the respondents, irie}d,iCiing’..¢eiv«iI_ATand ‘efirnéAne.i’ Vs

proceedings. if they are so advisers,if;.Vaeeore1_>1nee~ wi.th.1éua{.

es sa;% W3″

oss: Eestiee

…..