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