High Court Karnataka High Court

Smt Meenambal vs Karnataka State Financial … on 27 March, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Smt Meenambal vs Karnataka State Financial … on 27 March, 2008
Author: A.S.Bopanna
IN THE HIGH coum' op' KARNATAKA AT   '
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY an      "

BEFoRE E.      
THE HON'BLE MR. Jigs-TjcE A 3 EQVPAEEA  
wan' PETITION _No. 25754-gems 

BETWEEN :

SMT. MEENAMBEL' 

'.5.-7,10 LATE TO i:"«.'-'-'.;'.E{9..»'I'-!'c".'I'E*I-.:'£N" _  ' 

AGED ABOUT"65._YE.A--RS"   " 
R/A No.2,   » E 
vAsANTHaNA<3AR'«:.:  

AMQAEV

Bl ll'I\.rIl'[l.l

"1 J: ":'fi'V' V "
05;   

.. PETITIONER

(BY SR1 GA SRIKA'N'f£?§C3d_§VE$A;"ADV.)

A In r-3 , 
 nn..L.a'{.

1.
'1'.

% Kéhfteamxa S'i"ti"i"E F'iNANCi_AL CORPORATION

'  HAVING ITSHEAD OFFICE AT No.1/1
A'i'i~:7{"'1viIviiaii="-»E~i' ROAD

. %  NEARKSANTONMENT RAILWAY STATION
 B£Li\I"GALORE -- 560 052

 BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

V  '"';KA'RNATAKA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION

' ' 'HAVING rrs BRANCH OFFICE

AT CR8 COMPLEX

NEAR KSRTC STAND

KOLAR' -- 563 101

REP. BY ITS ASSISTANT GENERAL MANACAR

A

,4



3 TVENKATESHWARA FOODS mo P0!'14LTI%5fi'Mf'+'V.t5'5'?€°i.x.3I'<    V

NOJ35/2; HOS-ABEEDHI

YELAHANKA

_B.A_NGAl.-C)RE- 550 .054 .  

REP. BY ITS MANAGING IJARTNER'-._ A

  ABHAY xo.n.a..a.:-2   

s/o LATE MUN] NARAYANAPP

AC-ED ABOUT so YE'-JARS  V.

  V é    RESPONDENTS

(3? sm so PANDET, A$V;”‘F€ff€’R%’i.fie, .:
SR1 B. RUDR!%C3(3_WD£§, ADV? FQR”!§-92)

THIS evRziif’;%E*ri*ri€’ai~i*~.i;.~:iFiLEo’gUNDER ARTICLES 226 85
227 0F__.’I’.HE “G_ON’t?~fi’ITUTION omustola WITH A PRAYER T0;
Quasi; Ar«raE:x;oRE«’o P532? PUBLICATION PUBLISHED IN
TIMES OFINDIA’DATED_24,_1’14.2005INSOFAR AS IT RELATES To
THE HoUs’u:..oi+’ .T’H’E”o’PE’T’i’_T’iQN-ER MOREFULLY DESCRIBED IN
THE scnapuu: TO'”‘!’HE ‘WRIT VPETIITON, NOTIFIED UNDER
sL.r~:o.3m ViDEvAI\i”1\?’EXi.JRE:D PUBLISHED BY R2.

~ Writ.» Pfiiiiionv ooming on for Orders, this day, the

. ‘Coiirt xIi§5a’doV’Mt_31flo following :

‘1”.

I

zyough this petition is iistod in the ouiera category for

stops in respect of respondent No.3, it is noticed that

tlife 3″‘ respondent is the borrower and as such the presence

of the 3″‘ respondent in this petition may not be necessary to

on
J:

I
‘4

deciue the issize “‘””*1″ed, “”‘i’E partieii}a’ri”, V.

law ciecia1’cd by the Horfbic SupIen;¢>Court”Wit.:li_’v1’é’gatd mt

invoking of power under Section

Corporation Act (fay ghort the»t’,’§_9t’], Thgt to .

3″‘ mspondcnt is dispensed afid the isvvftakcn up
for consideration. t A A Z

-finmri ti: I–v”-=¥*=3′.:. gays: d”tr:d 2:-r.11.2m5

at ,.;..V;.4.’;;L.;e.~~=t.r;,*:,t at :’:”si.No.3(1) which is
publisliédt théxejnt pcfifioner contends that since

mspopdentfi’-. against the petitioner as a

~*t/of the loan advanced to the 3″‘

t ‘-pmvisions of Section 29 of the Act cannot be

ii;s}d1rédvl§ftfit1i§s§VV1:»etifioner in View of the law laid. down by a

Divittiali fiench of this Court in the case of

V.N.’NARAs1MHA1AH AND _.Tl-LERS -v.s;- a….*’..E

‘-1
l”’

2003 KAR 3344. On this aspect of the mattr.=.fi’ theiiltew

now well settled in View of the .H0n’ble

upholding the View taken by a Divi;~aio1iA_’ _

in Civil Appeal Nos.61o+¢3t1:2,(;zoo4′, on * T’

13.3.2008.

C-0
?

E
5
5′
E
a

u. 1 4. ; , I * the paper
pu’Diicat1’on_ Vt impugned in this
petition in 6:? xt§ect:ion 29 of the Act
without tl1_Ve_’ __t!1ej Gourt cannot be sustained
and the” quashed. However, in the

pefitipn. jtagir tttpciéugiiaer has indicated that the 2nd

V’ has No.46] 02 under Seefion 31 gr

mgaltl. Lhe Law is aett_.L=.d. that the

w,..u.1d :’;’.’.’3!€ tee Ii…-:r*..y m ” against the bafiower

3″” the provisions contained in Section 31 of

” 5 “the: Act

1
Z?

Accordingly. the petition stands disposed ‘of ‘

ordcraataooosts. T

r
3

E
*-: