High Court Karnataka High Court

Smt K Padmavathi W/O H B Boregowda vs The Dy Registrar Of Co-Operative … on 5 February, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Smt K Padmavathi W/O H B Boregowda vs The Dy Registrar Of Co-Operative … on 5 February, 2010
Author: N.K.Patil
IN '|'H|: H |("}|---l (_".(.Jl'R'|' (IF [\';\R?\'.»\'|U«\Ks\ AT [3,-\§\'(,,};-\L(iR[i \\".|'._\'.'_'275i) 0|"? 300')

W T}-IE }-|§GH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED TH§S THE 5?" DAY OF FEBRUARY, 

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.ir211.ive% Societies {W Circie}
 .M;z1}c.Swarari'1.

Baingalore.

I   T Sale Officei'.
..*Sri. Kengal Credit. C0~Opei"3.t.ive Society Li,d..

C0AOpera1.Eve Society.
Circ1e~1.
Bangz110r€ M 560 003.

W0__w_fl,._.....

EN 4|"

'|{[';|||(}||l'(H'R'|'(1|' §\',--\|{;\.-\'|C=\KC-\.=\'|'|'§.v'\N{i:\i.€I.)R|.'f\'v1|-'f\iu.3Z75€}()|-IUHU



1
7

E;\ THE I {K}! E {_'()l 5R'l' (JF i'x'.»\R;\%i-'\'l'£\K.r\- i-Ni' H:-\,'\'{%.-=\L{)Rli V» ti-'..Vo.3275€) 0}" 201)')

 aside the C()l'1fil'I'fla[i()l'1 of sale dated 151" October
2006 made in favour of Respondent No.4 eonfiigmed by

the Respondent No.1 vide order dated 81″ February 2008

in NOARB/44/Sale Confirmation/471 /0708 in respect

of the scheduled property under

respectively. She has also assailed the of”

the notice dated 11*’ September

and to issue a writ. of martd-.a__mus}.V_direCti1’1’g’VVAthve third

respondent. t.o Consider the re’p:resVentat’io:r1′”dated 271″
September 2007 for one time

settleinerit”by;_cao’r;side1<.ij*ig theddstatement of account
submit,tfe.d alorig 'wiit.h"representation. in the interest of
jtistityearld eqt11ty…'–

heoniy ‘grieVaric:e of the petitioner is that, the

{being aggrieved by the order dated 8*”

Febrnary . bearing N o.ARB / 44 / Saie Confirm ation /

/ vide Annexure H. has filed an appeai

it ” betforti the fi rst respond em in proceedings

¢4,….s..;

/
if
V

{N ii [if Hit}! E {‘(‘)i..’R’§’ U!” §{.»\R,\3,–\T:\K:”\ AT {‘§A:’\£{§Al.{_}E{i’i \;\,”.{‘f\£o.22?5£J 0|’ EHO’)

4
L\ I’?–if-i HIGH (‘.(}i’§{T (“JP-‘ K,-\RT\I»’\T.-\[\’.:=\ AT BAN(}.-\}.()l€I”,. \\”.§’.\o.ZZ75(J Of” 200′)

i\Io.DRB/1/Appeal/5/2008~O9. The said matter had
come up for consideration before the said authority and
the said authority. without affording reasonabie

opportunity of hearing, without. Considering the n1aie1’ia}

on record and without conducting proper (»3I1_(].l’j’i1’y”,’—}’Vi?,1V5$V.

proceeded to pass a non speaking order vide.VVAn_IieXure–.i_ ‘

M. ‘I’herefo1~e. being aggrieved bjf’same.-Ip–efit1Q1jie’rhis7

before this Court seeking app1’opr’i.ate._ rei1¢IsA,.’A’as”statesrv.

supra.

“”” “I.dh’a\rea’:heai”d'”l.earn’ed–‘eounse1 appearing for

pet:it’i(31i’e1f_1earned~,Giorernmeiit Pleader appearing for

respoiideIii:”s. 1*an(;.’-:._ 2~-andihe iearned counsel appearing

~.fol’v-tEj(5I1E;(.:SE.i.1’1g respo–i–ide1it’.s 3 and 4.

__4-._VAf:e’r.__e.ai’efui perusal of the order impugned

\ri’de”Ariri’e§égI.r%3-“M, passed by first respondent dated 281-”

JLI1y.20iG:9.V it is rnanifesi on the face of the said order

‘~?f’i.haf.’~~.¢1’he said authority has eornrniited an error and

ex.

IN TIH.-1 HIGH (.”{)i-RI’ (“J13 ii,–\R;’\’,–\’}’-\K_»-\ AT l’$.v\§\5( i,=\i..€JR].i \–N_}’._\lo_32T5!i {)l” 300″)