IN 'I'H£i HIGH CuR'I" 0I'= KARNATAKA A"? BA2\EGALORE
DATED THIS THE, 3"" DAY OF i\/IARCH 2()£V()V'I'I._i*._V_
BEFORE:
THE. I-ION'BLE MR. .IUSTi.CE ANIIAND E3YI{IA:l§I§Dl)'Y H i
WRIT PETITION No. 19530 I2oIII"7
BETWEEN:
N.R.Chz:ki.,
Son of SI'i.;'\E.G.ChzIki,
Aged about"/"i years, __ I I .
Benefit 0fSeIIi0I" Citizen is}..:1I)Ijc;1aiIjiI6;Ii;
Residing 21E N()._7"»".7.;Q., V ' '
1311: Nlaim IE5-['{'J'If,'£»)'S"S':\~:'::'\_' . .,
HAL.,£Ii'Sit;Ige}}_ _
B-&.ngaIIIz:e~3Is<I.III)es1j';iiI<II I .._PETITi()NE;R
(By Shfi.C.GQWITiSh€l_I'lk£1f: Sm£.GiI'ijI-1sEIaIIIi<aI", Advocaltes)
V 2 ..... .. V
I f I' I MI-%_;C.,i_"'ap:hIrc India I..ImiIed,_
V«A"P{i_bi_Ic.j,;;iIniIed Company,
V I{egis't"€-Ifed under the Companies Act,
H;{).N(5.3 1., C§I()wringhee Road.
CjTaI1<Eut£zI--7{)(') 0 I 6.
AA RepIfeseIItt:c;l by its C.'o2'IIpamy S6{,'1"€EL1I"y.
Km)
petitioner and his wife. It is stated that respondent. not Eltiie-d to
reply. The1’e§’t_>1’e. the petitiene1′ had a:dd1’e>;s;e.d at 1e.tte1’Vy\?*h4i{;-eh was
also not heeded. it later t1″:1nspi_1’es that respondent392116;’15_’i’1t.tf():*the:iV
the petitioner that they had neithe1’__tret’te4ivec’;’dainty-9’1’ett9et’v’_nQ1’«-Vthe»_
postal] cover t’1″0m the petitioner. (ht e.1_tqt1%1’iet;_tt»’.itt1«tE’3e’yt§t:9$t;tl
t).L1th()I’itiC$, it was found that thC..t’fi0St2li ‘ctLtt.h()i’iEi€-_S £;tt;;’o’ “c.dt1id not
locate the registered e(>,~.r”e~:tV_t111deti9″w’h.i’ehthe st()e’k”s”a’11d shares had
been transferred and the p9et_itirj’hVei; w~:–‘.1$Vtt1e_1;eat”ter infortned on
24.9.1999 Etna’-;_”5.t:t}1t;’l99:’l1 by the”fi1f$t~-“1*et:pténdent, that one Bha-thu
Bhat, the seetytttt sfespd:tdeht.’_w_tt$”ihyihg ctaitn to possessiott of 300
sh2t1’eseut’*(jt’ «; layittg elaitn to the ..’~’;a1ne iilegatily and
‘”the1″e’t’re, it is in this baek_gt’eLmd that the petiti(:>he.:’ had
court is that the decree should be in coiitormity with the judgment
and as long as the decree is in <;onform.ity with thatjtldgI11Ct1t;.IhC1'€
is no ground for seeking {.'(.)l'i'CL'[i()I1 and the court lt_t_t;s'"'It'e–«Itf_i ..t.]1:tt:_.VtE1e
perusal of the judgment .<;how.~; that EhtEHpi'()p<';'-1'.1"tf-iiiC'i"3;'=Wi;1'tCE'iAOL§.gi]'1".
to have been g1'ai"1ted are not gi'21nted. 1"'E5'tVthits;._be_i'so_' ii'tei–._Ai§'?1.t._tf1e
judgment which is required to 'be_Véi'mVe11ded zj1nd_no.t. etc; i
This is not in eonsonzinee with the iEii"1,gtt'&I_g€ o'fiiGrd.e.rViXX Rate (3
of the Code of Civil Proeieeditttie, specifies the
contents of at deeree.'_r
FI'()1'I1it1 i'e-£Jtttiii'1§7-.r.)Ei'Or;ie1~~..XXi"Rule 6, it can be said that
W'h£ff1 t'–l'1@'Pii1'i'-'miihfitiV£=3iIii"t1f%Wits" allowed by the _iLlti§iT]Cl1§ and
decree, it foi'~l.r._)\~-:~t that it<.)i1'1«1…atke the decree exectrtable, it ought to
desei~i'p.i-o':'i of the property namely. the shztre
e_ce't'a:i_fi'e.att'e:5ihin'present case on hand. Hence. the correction
sought eouldjnot have been said to be irregulz-u' or outside the
K "::=c;ope 1' Order XX Ruin: 6. Hence, the court below was not
i . ij'uSt»i–£'iAed in rejecting the appkication which rende:'s the _iudg._zr"r1ei"1t