- /. "N532:
13% THE HIGH CGURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGAL{§RE
DATE?) THIS me 19*" DAY or-' DECEMBEPg,«~~2{@'8__A'4'ii "
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE :s}§. EBAN'NuIAMA~m
&
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.VEf§'UGOPA,£A'A.GOW'DAv
wax? APPEAL NO.11S»i[V:' zoos (keM4§EAr-6; M
BETWEEN: ''
SR1 M A RAJENDRA
5/0 LATE M s ANANTHAPAA, '
AGED ABOUT 49--YRS_ V A
R/AT M0369,
BCC LAYOUT,' v1JA\;A;5:Az'3As?§ 905?, H »
BANGALORE_:4G.g_
A A AFPELUANT
(BY M/S.V'?1Qf-IAMVED Arngfgva ASSOCIATES, ADVS.)
A :1," fig KARNATAKA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION
A.TH1MMI%I/Vi! ROAD.
, N'EAaCAA:"roNMEnT, BANGALORE.
' REPRE§':ENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
2 E' ..[>EE1=:::_>1.:*w GENERAL MANAGER
KARNATAKA STATE FINANCIAL coRPoRAT1o:\:
" ' MYSORE.
for the loan availed by his wife -- fourth responden_t-.fren1
the flrst respondent. The fourth respondent3V§;."!a'o--rf'o§\re.r.'--.
had committed defauit and thewtinit_rof”*~.tijeV*:fouVrtvhV V
respondent was seized and
respondent in exercise of its power tinder Sec”tioAa._’2v9iiet’ the ”
State Financiai Corporation Vrviénit was
notified for sale on difierént was ultimately
said to the fifth, respondent The fourth
respondent questioning the
action of the tfiorporation. The writ
petition: was”djisrr:Eseed«…on.,.___t’3.1.’O6.05 against which W.A. ‘
No.1291}D.6″was’V..fii5ed iancivias dismissed on 12.09.03.
Review~Petitiorvi-.vif¢Vo’;38;t}’O£i’ was also dismissed on 7.11.08.
r ._2A.–.__”«Thea.Di3e!iant had flied W.P. No.7511/06 with a
prayetr to the acceptance of the offer of fifth
‘.Vrespe’nden:t.Vt’o purchase the unit at Rs.26.20 Lakhs as
“..j_agAAain5t the assessed vaiue of Rs.35.00 Lakhs and for a
to respondents No.1 to 3 to consider the offer
“”r.VVV§¥#en by the appeiiant vide Annexures-D and E. Taking
/”gt.
into consideration the subsequent event, namel§’;«.:T:’t.he
execution of the sale deed in favour
purchaser on 08.06.06, the writ petition ash
having become lnfructuous, reeerefirie
petitioner. Assailing the saidiiorder pessed_Vb§(‘Attje~lee:rned”‘ 0
Single Judge, this writ appeal Vflejsifiled. .
3. The appellent’ to produce
additional doouzeeet tne0jtiéiomroi:’niicat:on from the
first respondent. tlemanding payment of
as.2,7a,ss3/;s(Absentee). é’._’I’.’A.:II/O8 was filed to stay
the respondent was directed
to file affidevlt expleintvngeis to howthe said demand was
.–vV.’1mac!e~§.the”””ep.p–eilant. Sri.G. Nagaraja – General
A”‘.__MeVneger,__”~Sotfth. Zone, of the first respondent –
C:.orpo:’etto:i*.V–V!$;ee’tiled affidavits dated 05.11.08, 10.11.08 8:
jV25.11u.0;8v”‘e¢lso producing the statement of acceunts. The
iiiggwpellant Nfiled memo dated 19.09.08 producing the copy of
*–«.’th’e.,it:dgment dated 12.09.08 passed in W.A. No.1291/06
enclosing the memo of calcuiations in respect of both
the loan accounts of the fourth respondent with the first
respondent. The appeliant aiso filed memo {Ldeted
12.08.08, producing the communication
received by the appeilant aiong with theV__s?i:atenjen_t’
account.
4. We have heard”iS’ri,uMoharn’ed At:h’egj-!»..¢.i.ea§;neVfd
counsel for the appeiiant an_di:”‘:S:ri.~E$ipin.”i=!!:e§:de_,:? iearned
counsel for the respond’en’:sAe«nd;_perused”the records.
5. to.1…’the”vi’ii~ir§t.___V:’Vi)etition is dated
04.0735, ‘– “of a representation of the
appeiiant Vérddi*ess”e.d’Vto”th:e second respondent, wherein he
&_ nad»’-i?equ’estedV”to cpneider the fresh proposai of Rs.34.50
Leichs one Mr. Ashanthakumar. Annexure-E
is the copy of a representation Mr.A.
Shahnthavkuniar addressed to the Managing Director ef the
“:j=.fitrsi:i:-respondent — Corporation, wherein it was requested
« reconsider the offer given by the eariier bidder in a sum
Rs.26.50 Lakhs and to accept his offer mi’ Rs.34.50
Lakhs.
6. In the judgment dated 12.os..«os,»VVv.iotmieo
dismissing W.A. No.1291/06 fiied by the ..
herein, with regard to the very samélitissusl,
as foiiows:- : ” ” i
18. However, taking’ __into considera’t§von.._’vt!1e
submissions made by v’53:i”:’V.h1ad’h-aifa'”Ready,
lea med counsel. fat resp’on’t3a4r.tV’»’tio.4, Vite” déem
it appropriate to”a’dir’ectt._i’f}1V§; ti’5v’.V_r9.spondent to
pay to the 3.” raspoijderatfiorfioration a total
sum jiaichs ..:V(‘i-.é.,——Vw:the amount
o”f’fé”rédV?t7y §}’.»..:Shantha’kumar, to purchase
the” oendency of the writ
petitiéori vvbéforo’.thaiéarned singie Judge) as
; ‘ tho cons.i<_1e'ratio'n for purchase of the industrial
t:,.nit…'4"*"'raspondent shat! pay within a
—_pgfiod..’:’of_ six weeks from today to the 1″
résioondiéhtt, towards borrowers ioan account,
the oifierence amount of Rs.9.30 iakhs (i.e.,
“Rs;135.50 — Rs.26.20 =2 9.30 iakhs) aiong with
” ”«._interest on 9.30 iakhs @ 12% 13.3. from
22.2.2005 til! the date of actuai payment. It is
maée clear that after the remittance of the
aforesaid amount by the 4″‘ respondent to the
/i
15′ respondent — Corporation and
adjustment to the loan account
petitioner / appeiiant, if any amount__’rerne§_nst’4_
in surplus, such amount-ishaii. A
be refunded by the respon:den_tse~ t’o~.3″t_o
petitioner / appellant,’ -This Verr’angers1v”en;tv:h_VaVs
been made by us tatkinfi» intotconsée’-ereagion
the submission mede-. the ‘ieerned
counsei for the”‘«e”$.reLsp.ond”en’;t.::and also to
avoid any inJuAs_tir;:e=,b’eing to the
appeiiant’.’-Ed.’- _
7, …. _pCZ’o.n’si’ii;eringjtbthve “di’smi§saI of the Writ Petition
and the writ the fourth respondent wherein
the very e’er_fne..issne*§yitn”..’iregard to the sale of the unit in
favonirtvvoi’ the nfifthvrespondent herein was considered and
order.mépde.__as noticed hereinabove, it cannot be said
ttthat,’th’e’a”§’r;*ipAu§ned order passed by the learned Single
V –V Jude:-:,..cvaiis’iior any interference.
it Though no interference is caiied for, we were
‘ .._/”,A:L$_t_.irprised with the demand of Rs.2,?8,563/- made by the
V ifbfirst respondent vide Annexure–G. Hence, wefiailed upon
/
the Corporation to fiie the affidavits explai*riV§r:;;j’L:’–.l:the
position. The affidavits filed by the Genera-if::’Ma-na§er’.o’fA
the first respondent ~– Corporation»..did–‘_” it
correct calculations. The erroneous?’.’_ep’proa~g’h
been adopted by the first reeoo-n_dent”~:_CorooratiVo’n'”in the” V
matter of accounting of the rerruttances /’ hayment by the
fourth and fifth res;$ondentsf’:~.’and’Vr’.’:_a.lVso_ calculation of
interest, the erro*rv_cornrnitt’eti the demand
made as per Thereafter, the
first respelident found that the appellant
is not:*.,_liabieAV.Vto’.pay .ai2$r_:”‘an1ount towards the two loan
accounts ‘ofuthel to which he had stood
as th;e”gAuarantor.Vavndeon the contrary as per the revised
_of..calAt*elatlon, the fourth respondent is entitled to
certain sum. There is still a dispute with
V if . regard toiithellactual amount which the fourth respondent is
ifHK:”.v4A””‘V.t,.entitl’edVV’to be refunded with by the first respondent –
‘Corporation. Since it is not the appellant who should get
if the refund and as he was only a guarantor and now that
V if the Corporation has made it clear that the log amount of
‘z
the fourth respondent has stood discharged and th_’ai:f_i_’s
entitled to be refunded with certain sum,
proper to dispose of this writ” appealas4foll_o$}’&s”:’§:V’.’;v» 4′
(F)
(*5)
No interference.yvithvélthe. imp’u’g.ned’
passed by the leaiered Sing”ie_ ‘fioedgeiiviisfffcalled
for.
In View of:.tiie.jrfeaiis;;etioo7.”ioan amount by
u.§:o:t*.’i’nVV:’fovour of the fifth
y§:ae::?upheld by this Court in
‘1VVv.vV#:”.VN@L7s9f6./35′ vide order dated o1.o5.os
” gand in WA. No,.1291/O6 dated
the first respondent – Corporation
. siiall not be entitled to proceed against the
.,.”.’:–~.,api5Ve.i’l’ant for realising any dues from him as
‘ guarantor for the loan transactions of the
1’ fourth respondent.
fan)
since the fourth respondent is the wife of the
appellant, in view of the corrective steps taken
\
/,5
10
by the first respondent – Corporation to –revise
the calculations and consequentf’:’tof_:the
judgment dated 12.09.03 passedv..§h’:.5’VJ..}§.«
n:o.1291/05, the firstarvespondentl}jcqrporatson x
is hereby directed
recovered from respo:ndeht’V’and also”?
the refundable inltermsi of the
judgment uiiaated’ ….iZ.O§§r98..j ‘aassed in W.A.
No…;t291/Q_6″ to fovtu.rth7 reepondent, within a
——– _f;3e’riod;:_3of fo:u’r.vweeksV.from today.
it iV§«..rna.de’ clear that, if the caiculations made and
&_ the’-tafnount refuncl._ed.~by the first respondent to the fourth
‘ reepondent..tsnot in conformity with the actual liability of
H fhrespondent towards first respondent –
Corporation. either the appellant or the fourth respondent,
afteaj pointing out to the first respondent, the error if any
Ahiphlthe calculations and in the matter of the amount
V’ refunded, if not properly accounted for and the grievance if
any in that regard is not redressed, the fouliw respondent
}…3
‘.«…|
and the appeliant are at liberty to agitate the mgttjeif’-. 2
with regard to the micwatien and the accourztjngéA!rj””£heV.$_”
appropriate forum, in accordance with {awe _:. I
Writ appeal stands d¥sgm_$edA’tf;”‘accord’in;;.§:y;V .
costs.