High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri.Benaka Souradha Credit vs The Accounts Officer on 17 June, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Sri.Benaka Souradha Credit vs The Accounts Officer on 17 June, 2009
Author: Ajit J Gunjal
   

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BAN

DATES '3'!-11S THE 17th my OF' JUNE 20{>9f'¢'  L' 

BEFORE

THE HOIWBLE MR. Jus'1':<:EjAJ:*r J,   

WRIT PETITION NO. 14,831)12§3Q§(CS,+'_I;)AS) {

BETWEEN :

Sri.Be:"1aka Souradha Credit  _  --4 . 
Cmaperative Society Ltéfi; '  * 3' '

Rep. by im Secretary, "
Sn1t.\fija3»*aiakshr§ii,.__ _  _  - 
Aged abeut 4'7     _  
No.60, lst F1001';  ." «'  V"   »
19$  }3031~'1a " E.

2nd stage, Rajfiinagééf,   
Bangalore -, 5603.-1%Q;'%   ~ ~ ...PEfl'I'£'IONER

(By S:v::,I:a~.s.Nag:§:aji;"';§é§.)

 t 21 ; :Th.ci é.%<;cau;its._ Oficer,

A =. 0;] O. {Ehief VE:j.i.gir1c:e1:*,
K;».a:3:I1,a_¥,aA'{Va;~"?0wer Transmission
Corporatiun Ltd.,

" ~ .  AACauvc::§% Bhavan,
" Barigaiore -~ 560 009.

    Sri.R.Nagara§u,
  --Aged about 45 years,

Typist, 'Work in the
0/0. Chief Engineer,
(fiiectricai), Kamataka



Pewer Transmission

Corporatien L'{d.,

Cauvexy Bhavan,

Bangalore --- 560 009. ...RESP{)NDEN"I'S

This writ petition is filed under A:*tic1es..?i2'2'6~.. m1§3¥   _
22'? cf the Constitution of India with a prayeajio. cii;1*€::tt~  
the R2 the Acceunts Ofiicer, to compel I1iI31"t0jf::t:fert;e  
the Staiutery duty cnshrined ih Sub-:3cctio r:{f2)V "c";f "
Section 34 of FIGS Act, 1959 to rect)vez:"ab;e R3311 :; 
by attaching the salary of R2, by attaciiing  'as; '

per the Attachment orde1'_"~.6954/2006, disposed of an em

 " A' September 2086. 
; 5

[.



-3-

3. Respondent No.2 has borrowed a sum of

Rs.25,0()0/~ on 16.{)’?.20{)3 from the petitioner”–.p-M

Society. He defaulted in repaying the

dispute was raised by the pefitioner and d

passed by the Arbitrator. ‘1

passed by the Arbitrator, respo_nden’.:_ No.2 has V

the amount due under the awefdédinp
notice was issued No.1 tender the
provisions of Rule 37(1}…df_ AI<ia1*£iafa:1§e'V"{'Jo–operative

Societies to deduct the

loan respondent No.2 til} the
loan amount however, respondent No, 1

has not dedneted Vtize amount. Hence, this petition

is seeldng wrifof' nxandamus to respondent No. 1, to
from the saiary of respondent

$§ri.B.S.Nagara_i, learned counsel appearing for

pfzttitiofifit' submits that the award passed by the

flserbitrator has attained finality and the order of

attaching the salary of respondent No.2 has not been

-4-

qizestioxzad by him in any ether forum knewn to 1awT;:”He
further submits that zwaspondent No.2 is still ”

5. Siilcfi’, an idéntical matter had 1 ‘
this Court and this Court had j;1:f’1<_:f
1:0 deduct the loan ameum, 'V
defaulter, this writ petition. disp5s5;{1L*§r the

fellowifig directions:

(i) Respondentii… 1\,f{::*..1 ‘ ._ “.d§r(4:c:91,£:é1 to
wit: the of 1§1sm§,=VAkfmm the
Sallefig ‘ta? 12 in monthiy

jstated in the

at Axmexure ‘D’;

ma

. V. _ ” “‘-epcxit ‘£f1″é sa1ne to the pe’::itioner–

Wrfi:’1~pefition sstands disposed of accordingly.

(decree holder) from 1st of
” gizfxigrgzoog.

Sd/””

Judge

SP8