High Court Karnataka High Court

Sree Charan Souharda Cooperative … vs Sri V Riaz Ahmed on 27 January, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Sree Charan Souharda Cooperative … vs Sri V Riaz Ahmed on 27 January, 2009
Author: Ram Mohan Reddy
1 : .
IN THE HIGH COURT 012' KARNMAKA, BANGAL/(§':2E;L-«.VJ:A'

DATED TEES "THE 27TH DAY 0:3 .1ANUAR¥--, §0§§éf' .   -
BEFORE_-m_  '"" :' "
TI-{E HONBLE MR. JUSTECEZ EAM
WRIT PETITEQN No.:1'ii 3v'::..QFE2;odV}fs {.GN:.} ;ja;.>_fr2--.V  VA
BETWEEN:   '   ' H' V'

SREE CHARAN S0:J£»mR:3A%«-- _ EV .
CO--C)PEE€A'f'IVE BANK L1wr_s:D,'   
(FGRMERLY sREEVcHARAN_,144.:1'R;=;QH;«,vEN_DRA.
        PETETIGNER

[BY M;;é._.A we Af€;%g:\;'f:j}m.T»'K;2'§_s':4NA MURTHY M3,)
Am: « " V' "' '

1 g V RIAZ_AI--iME.f}
 "iPEQP:..}{GHIN'©*--£*--F<" EXWRTERS,
 ' N{3.:21_'/*A,._8TH MAIN ROAD
" -V .; ;3.I,;:::Cz<:,':::.ALYaNA NAGAR
 1'~;;=2Bv:2%'LA;*;.@~UT, BANASWADI,
"-.%BAN@A.1,:2Ra »_ 550 04.3.

-V 2  M;-Vs. iH1Noc>R EXPORTERS

NTQ5 144, I FLOOR, MfLE<If'fi}'§I\i STREET,

" AA  ULSOGR, BANALORE-8.
':~?E?.By PR}-"'. V RIAZ AHMEQ. 4 .3 26590» SDEEUT»

'  (B '§f SR}. 3 G BHAGAWAN, ADV FOR R2}

THIS WRIT PETYFIQN IS FILE-313 UN§3ER ARTICLES 2126

 AND 22? OF' THE C(}NS'?IT'UT1{Z}N C3}? INDEA PRAYING TE}

QUASH THE EMPSGNED ORDERS PASSED BY" THE H{I}N'BLE
DR'? BANGALOEE'. DTI3. 9.4.2C3G8, AND ORDERS BY THE: CITY

M

{J



2 T 7
CIVIL czoum', CC3I~:f»-2:5 EN 0 8 NO. E46?/G5, DTD. 2;,'§é";:é'Q:j"6,

UNDER THE OREGINAL OF ANNEXURE-C ANS A ;=;:r;:'I:sBf:f~a:,_    _

THIS PETITION, CGMING 0:»: FOR .e§%.b 'ERs.;:: $3153"  

DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLQWING:  h'

o R n E Ii":  ' 

with that consant of the Viefifngd <:A<.m;_1s»:=.iVVfo1f pmiies, " V

the Writ yetition is  _d.isfi§dsedA  by this
order. V  A  V 2

2. Peztitionr.-:1', g1  under the
Kaznataka  «  } '.;(.;:t:,1"'V£:Xt€I1(I1(i':d financial
assistagjce  .zts£;<:)nc1e1:2ts, which when not
repaid, féspgltgd  of G.S.No.146'?/ 2005 on

the fzia pf  16$  City Civil 8:; Sessions Judge,

.' V. °Baxigéa:,'10fe, CQH Nc«§.HéES (f0r short 'Civil Court'), whence the

 Lpé_1fti£:s gigspearance, filed their written statement and

advegficed.  that the plain: deserves to be rejected in

 Xview of Qrder 7 Rm met} {if the cps. The Civil Court, by

A " <Vi:-m:£iLf"«_. dated 21~1}.~2G(}6 answereck the said point for

'  e€i;1si;1eration, in the afiirmativtz and accordingly ordered

u fietum of the piaint for presentation befare the Debt Recovexy

Tribunal, Bangalore with a further direction to the partifis to

M



3 . 
appear before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (for short i??]_#'~§;t

10.30 pm. on 11--(}1--20{)?. it appears that 

wok return of the piaint, presented  sa1:::1,r;"bé'f($fi. §ii1e {}RT  " " V

whence its Registry noiified certai11._obj&cti01is, :vI1ich:W_h€:s:_'

13.0': complied with by the pétitjQne1:,'.,_t§1e  A§'£i;f1}S$(ji {O 

register the application for no:1:Cc§jj1;3}ian;ie*,  orfiiaer dated
10-04-200

:7 Annexure–“:3%”;:%«. A Z

3. The §e:tiiio:3,:eVr _ -_I:E.iédi_ “:;p;.’§g.13″161/2007 in

:.R.No.1034/gfiofififi’ rgéanimé o}~’d§r1–a’a:eé 10~04–:2.007. The

BET, fiat bemg the explanation ofiisred by the
petitioner “teu “c;31i€1Q.3’ié. éeielay-‘ in filing the application

C1iSflfi.$$€d V {interlocutory Appiication and

by orcier étd. 9.4,2(}{}8, A1:111€:xu1’€~C.

:’ii;eii$;::%é, “this ,’$z’§?1′”_i:fi’ jieiifion.

A 4. ;~1e a.«:::~.;;; the Ieazneci counsel for the parties, Pamsad

Hthé: afiafinents set out in the pleadings. Discretion to

Vfienféiéne the d€}J;1}7, it 15 held, is like any other judicial

” ciiscxetion which must be exercised with vigilance and

circumspection, according to justice; common sense and

Wk