High Court Karnataka High Court

Smt Rangamma vs Canara Bank on 1 December, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Smt Rangamma vs Canara Bank on 1 December, 2010
Author: S.N.Satyanarayana
EN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BAN

DATED THIS THE 13:' DAY OF 1)ECEMBER;2{--)«'1§)..,'._:  ~  %

BEFORE

THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE  

WRIT PETITION NO. 38965.. op' V2009 [G11/:I'¥'i?.;ES)VV' :3
BE'I'WEEN * J '   

Smt. Rangamma

Aged about 64 years, _ Q

W/0. Late Chikkagangaié{h',-    .  .

R/at No.295, 2"3'f;2x1§oss;=._ :    

 "      .

Masjid Block, j j  »

 "    

Bangalcg-rem 563-O.,O214V  _ --  Petitioner

(By  )

AND  »

  _ Bank        

  -.Bas._avan.a;g--L1di Branch,
 B*a;nga1o:e.:~:~ 560 004
"Represented by the

""4.Bra_.f1'ch«-'Manager

" "   .. , _ s;?:;~---C. Nagarajaiah.

_ "S/0. Late C. Chinnappa
 Aged about 57 years,
Prop: M/S. Vishnu Gas L.P.G.,
Chowdasandra Village,
Honnasandra Post,



Nelamangaia Taluk,
Bangalore Rural District

3. Srnt. G.N. Geetha,

W/o. Late Govindaiah,
Aged about 65 years,
Residing at No.952/ 27,
3" Main, 3" Cross,
Vijayanagar, V    A - =  --~
Bangalore --« 560 040     Respondents' 

(By Sl’i.V. Haridas Bhat, Adv. foi?V’:i”»2._3.}’».

This Writ Petition “issiiled under gkijtieles 226 & 227
of the Constitution Of India._pifayi11g=.tov(;_u_a’sh the paper
publication issu_ed_ byqthe ».fesp.onde:t1t…p’no. 1 in Hindu
Daily English’ ‘ Ne’w5f;>aper”” dated’ 12.2009 Vide
Annexure — __L; ‘I. ” X _ .. J .

n ..*…. ..’-

This on for pre1imin’ ary
hearingkin’ ‘B’ C§ro1._ip..Vt13.is”* day, the Court made the
fo11ow”ing:”__ 4′ _ W

‘ herein is irnpugning Communication

datedhl at Annexure W L, published. Hindu

‘es.,.,.,_.44″I3’,ng1is1: newspaper and letter dated 26.08.2009

“:a_dd:1?e’ssed to the petitioner vide Annexure — D.

“V-‘\

and outstanding from the second respondent as on

10.12.2009. In the said letter it is stated that, ifjthe

amount is not paid the bank will be taking

steps for attaching the said property”fQr”~,reali_Asati0¥1″of

the aforesaid dues. Similarly, ,,1etter4’at:;*\_r1nexirreA’+- it

communication sent to the petitionervhherein to
her notice that isusudhject to
mortgage rights of of loan
transaction, V

5. two ietters being
_o’g’r”Vdt1asi1ing them does not
arise. In these what is sought to be

conVejfed,.to p_etitior’:er herein is that amounts that is

respondent to 1*” respondent and the

resportdent. to recover the same on the

.security the property purchased by her. Therefore,

qiiestion of quashing the said communications does

arise for consideration in this Writ Petition. Hence,

”»_the same is dismissed.

wvx

UK

6. However, liberty is reserved to the ..

and when notice is issued to attach and se«’l,1_” the M

property, to approach the competent aut5E1:0»sfit._fi{V”:VioVL.”‘.

substantiate her right against the ‘at’:t’21e};1I11ej;1;_tp/V

the property.

JJ