BETWEEN:
1
V ' ' "Sagar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
Dated this the 1 1*" day of November, V'. j" '
pREsENie__
THE I-ION'BLE MR. JUs:;*1c:Eei\rj; A T.' 7 I
AND ._ 2 .
THE HON'BLE MR.JU'Cz'_fi{;E
Writ PetitionVNQ.. 34702 o}I'_gd1.Q [GM~ C'ON]
Sri Anil Kumar Wad
Age 45 years)" V . A
Managiiag «Di1=eé:t0r ,_
MATCO_[P}_ 1;;;_td.," ' 4'
Nc;--I--2e.AAPMC73[9.rd--..
Ségaf:
Sri BV, BasaVaraj_ S
Age 50 years" "
.. '5;F'reSident, IVIAIQQ {P} Ltcl.,
- G€1iehé1l.1i Village
1.
_ Aa:1nane,11;. Post
‘ Saéar T31~’4B=~
A VSr1’ WEE Kumar
“Ag’e_50 years
S’/_o_ Veerappa Gowda
V ~ v._Direcf;0r, MATCO {P} Ltd.,
No.12, APMC Yard
EV/..
IN.)
Sri Raj ashekar Gowdaru
Age 56 years
S/ 0 Basavanneppa Gowda
Director, MATCO (P) Ltd..
R/0 Malalikoppa Village
M. L. Halli Post.
Sagar Taluk
Sri K E Mruthyurljaya
Age 54 years A
S / 0 Eswarappa Gowda
Director, MATCG”{1?]& I,1;c§;”f ”
R/0 Kanalli Village _ —
Ulavi Post 5 V V
Sorab Taluvkv
Sri K M§’.Shl’ya1_laIr’t§a€ V.
Age 336 years”V._ 4′
S / 0 M1;Cl’dy:l.yyeer;»1p1Zléi”V?
D’ire’ctonr7;y MATCO”{P]*-Ltd.[“””‘
‘R/ o_ Kama: .73/iliageyy – _ .
M_I.’Ha111._Po.st.. ‘
Sagar Taluk V’
3:1 Basavyaraja A
Age 56 years. _____
S/0 Channabasappa Gowda
A” * Director; MATCO {P} Ltd..
M.athana Koppa Village
Varadayfl/ioola Post
S_’agarITa1uk
n T xE’2rl:’M B Manjunath
‘ Age 40 years
: S/ 0 Bangarappa
Director, MATCO [P] Ltd..
R/0 Sagar Gas Agency
9
AND:
1
2
B H Road
Sagar
Sri M S Sadananda
Age 45 years ._
S / 0 Shanthappa Gowda
Director
MATCO (P) Ltd., ,
R/0 Hirile Marur Viilage _
Padavagodu Post ‘V e — – ;
Sagar Taluk …Petit.i01jfers
(By Sri Mahesh R L§ppirI;;AdV’Qcate)
Smt.Chandi’an11na« I _
W / 0 ICsh;V’a14a’ppa V. ‘t
Aged 48 ywfrs ~ e H
R/’e”IvI14Ar1g1im’ar1e Village 3 ‘ ‘
S:asara.va11’iVPpstr ” _ ‘V ‘
Sagar4TaIuk~.V”«..
Malrrad Areea.Traders
; Company. (P) ‘ Ltd. ,’
“:¥.B:e_telnVut Merc.h.ants and
. V Cefimiission Agents
–,R-e_pV’rese1″1te_d by its
V I\:Ia1″1.agirigV Director
…Resp0nderats
‘ ‘1*h;’s’ wfit Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
q the C
onstitution of India, praying to quash the order dated
fi3–5–20’o9 passed in C0mplaint.N’0.161/2008 on the file of the
* _ ~._”CQns’umer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shimoga marked as
h Anhnexure-A and the order dated 23-22010 passed by the State
Consumer Disputes Redressai Commission. Ba’ngaiore, in
Appeal No.2003/2009 marked as Annexure-B. _
This Writ Petition coming on for ord&?.:I”S~:.’_iFhish
N. Kumar J., made the foiiowingz
0 R VD ECR
The petitioners have p’I’e’ferred it Writ Petition
challenging the order passfed theiiiarnataka State Consumer
Disputes Redressal upholding the
order passed has directed them to
pay theitarriourijts rné;:1i.ioned therein
2. Tiie._g1*ieVa11ce’._of’the petitioners is that, the amount is
, &_ to izigfipaid the”cor_npany and not by the directors. Directors
not –1ia’o1e._t’o satisfy the said claim. The same being purely
.q the Pethitiion is to be entertained.
aquestion the Court has the jurisdiction and, therefore,
3. The District Forum as well as the State Fo_r_um has
held that there is a deficiency of service and has
compensation and the order is passed againsi;:—the
and its directors. ‘t H t
4. The question Whether t.hs5 dire’ctor7=.s a.ieAtV:l’iai:}1_6V”to nay T
the said amount or not, is a rnatter’wh’ieh thetyjycan ‘~agi=ta’te’hy
way of a revision. This is not a_c’ase where ‘th_i’._s Court should
ent.ertain when the Ii1}e.titi0I<J:{§r.b.'V_':1.1aV"?-6. an alternative and
efficacious remedy. in that'\*i'ew'Vi"of the-. matter, we do not see
any merit in Accordingly, the Writ Petition is
dismissed with iii3.erty'1io""'t.Jj'eJpetitioners to avail the revisional
remedy" provide-d_ under the statute.
Sdfg
Iudég
$6.! :
iifiétaé