High Court Karnataka High Court

M/S Zion Infrastructure Company … vs M/S Karnataka State Industrial … on 19 June, 2008

Karnataka High Court
M/S Zion Infrastructure Company … vs M/S Karnataka State Industrial … on 19 June, 2008
Author: Cyriac Joseph Gowda
  'f _ .
 N.i?.Mohai'!a, hriyaarc .. Appcflant

 H.K}va§udwa Ready, Advocate for ma Kcsvy & cc-.,
«:.A<1va¢:at§:S§"

   V _ __1. "~!V\aVV§]é."Kamataka State Inw¥ustna1'

11! min me}; count' or mnuxmim A1' 3'  " 

mmn um um 19» mm or sun  V  L'
mm HOIPBLE m:.c'nuAc Jqsxpri;   % A "

mm Hozrnm nan.JUs1i<::'n[T% aown;

Writ Anng 131.110.   'L ' 33¢:

Between:

M/s Zion Infias_t_;'t1ct11 're:'«1.; _ _ , 
Company F'v'r,'Ltd.'w._lj T: ' _ 
Ofiice at No.41, 9"!   » ' _ 
Shivaji Rae  . .    
N.R.Mohalla, Mymm V ' '
Represented by its" ~. '

Power of Attdracy .. _
H;91dcrShfi":C_:Yohana "  ..... 
Si!) Chandra Babufl

   ' 

No.340. is': 

Jaivestznent and Development
Corporation Ltd.
Ofioe at Khanija Bhavan
No.49, 451 Floor, East Wing
Race Course Road

 



Bangalore
Represented by its Managing Director

2. The General Manager
M/s Karnataka State Industrial  
investment and Development  
No.49, 431 Fiber, East Wing
Raoc Course Road

Bangalore

3. The Deputy Gcncral Manager '~ V .
M/3 Karnataka State-lndugflfieii    . ._ »
Investment and Devakipmcnt  
Khanija Bhavan,  .. I  _V __.-- 1;.
No.49, 4:11      
Bangalore """  - _ '

4. The Assistant Gcncnél  " 
M] s Ka1'nat.a'}a:a'L'wtateV._In':3113»'tf:'{a1'
Invcstmcnt ant? .  Ifjorporaizion
Regional Offioc, Sunder" Aztéada

 «Opp: Suburban Bus 
  

5. W-s   (INDIA)
Pvt. Ltti-.--,' No.2_9--.1fis;

_ «  ,_ 1~Iehbai..uIndns%1'ia}'Arca

Mysore 4- $169013 .. Respondents

P..R.Ra n1esh’ , Advocaa: for R-I to R-4, Sri K.S.I-iarish,

1_» R-5)

VT V’ ‘This wzit appeal coming up for admission on this day, the

: deiivemd the fa-l1ow1ng:–

ghicn by the learned Single Judge in

JUDGHII1′
cvmac .:os1:1>1~1 c..1. (om; A _

1. The appcnam. is the petitioner in 14;;.:.~11gto.,1«o ‘ii
2007 which was disposed ofby the %
order dated 01.10.2007 A T’

challenge in the writ petition ;eole.p1ooeedings in
respect of a pmperty guarantee for
repayment of a 1-t mspofldcnt.

Corporation. _+1*m-. in favour of the 5th
respondent Judge did not fit} any
iflegaiity or 61¢ the loamod Single 1
Jlfidge took}gti1c~ one last chance oouid be given to the

the property, if he chooses to do so. The

i.1;1ia1I21grapli”‘–10 of impugned order:

L. V __ ‘i1′(3; Consequently, this petition stands dbpwod
of the following directions:

1}; The petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.l1O
with 20% immst from 17.11.2006 till the date

V of deposit;

2) The petitioner shall deposit the: said amount
Within a period of eight weeks fiom today. If the said