I
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
IDATEB THIS THE 021*» DAY OF MARCH 2009 T
BEFORE
THE H{)N'BLE MRJUSTICE B'.S;PATILL
wnrr rumor:
BETWEEN:
PRAVEEN SUNDAR SHETPY, S/OSUNDAR samwv, 35 YEARS, HINDU, PROPRIETOR, . .
MAI-IAKALIAUTO L’I::’I).,,”u _
COUR’I’BACKROAD,–, ‘
UDUPI. . 1111 _ “-~-…».”PETITI{)NER
(sR:.K.A.AR1GA;..ADv.3
AND:
VIJAYA BANK, ” ., _ ‘
13Qmr_1NcQR’:4>QRA-T1_3 CONST§T.U”PED UNDER
BANKING VCGMPMHES (ACQUISITION AND
TRANS!’-‘E’.’R”€)F U1§’x”3ER’I”A}_{ING) ACT 40 01:’ 1930
HAVING rrfs HTi::.;19.’GFF1C1a: AT BANGALORE
» LAND BRA–NC–H’ OFFECE M VARIOUS
1 _ F*I.’A.CES IN mmg. ENCLUDING ONE AT
v:A’I’HFIADY ore’ UBUPE TALUK AND £8
..RE,.?RESENTEfi B? rrs PRINCIPAL OFFECER,
4B ‘RAN<;H..MaNAr3ER AND GENERAL POWER
OF A'I~".¥_"ORNEY HOLDER,
._SM'I'.S{§SHEELA K.PUNJA, MAJOR,
'- wf1rraoF'RAMAxR:sHNA puma, Hmnu,
B:2'A:s:,<;I«i__ MANAGER AT A'I'HRA.3Y BRANCH,
" ' g f . gums: TALUK, POST ATHRADY. : RESPONQENT
~ V % "(sR'i';'i*.s.vENKATEsH, ADV.)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 225"i.'§ré:_:«.t:"'~v.'
227 OF' THE CONSTITUTION OF IND£A PRAYING TO cAL.L._5i*oR' '?:~j;E._f' 4-
ENTERE. RECORDS IN O.S.NO.47/2906 PENDING BEE(fi2g' T'
PRINCIPAL Clvn. JUDGE (SR.DVN.) AT UDUPI-ANc– , _ . "
"ms wan' PETITION comma QN F'O'§-'I.__F;UtftTHEt?v_–v_(§RDERS{;'–~
THIS DAY, THE comm' MADE THE FOLLQWJNG: V
oggn ' '
The gievancc of the base the
Court below mfizscd to gxfant counsel
for the defendant = tprocccded to
mconi in the onicf. ciiass cxaminafion of
P'W.1.
2. G11 pefugal 9£”‘:1_;ét’m{1fe;”‘s.£heet dated 10.7.2008, it is
see}; that uexanaiz1é1fit)t1;~in–@:hief of PW.1 was done and soon
for the defendant sought for time to cross
that stage, the Court has taken the cross
VV’.;-g=;$V;a’V1n_1’nati<$ta of .F"sVf.':1 as nil on the ground that no suficicnt
' for the adjournment sought.
3.} Having heard the learned counsel for the parks and
‘ -ot1″4″co3:tsideration of the facts and circumstances, I find that
there is nothing to show that the defendant had A4
pmfiacting the Iifigation by mpeatedly asking for V
4. However, it has to be swn that it :
proceed with the cross ~w.t§rith§ii:t_’
delaying the process. The an
observation that there was no But, in
my View since there was
pmtxactjng the is opportunity
to cross cxarnling :1 ‘result in failure of
justice. AA L H 9
5. Injtixe ffif the impnycd order refusing
the defendant to cross examine
the xévsfic. The counsel for tha defendant is
PW.1 without asking for any further
Itflqe