High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri Ralla Keshava Reddy S/O Sri … vs The Manager Bank Of Baroda on 9 March, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Sri Ralla Keshava Reddy S/O Sri … vs The Manager Bank Of Baroda on 9 March, 2009
Author: Ram Mohan Reddy
 

-1-

IN rm: HIGH comma' or xanmmxm  
cmwrr BEHCH AT GULBARGA % A

DATES THIS THE 973 DAY 0:? MARc1s:,p'2{§o9'j#k'~ V}  ' 1 LV

BEFORE 

THE HONBLE MR.JUSTIC}TE3_§}IOHAN, REi)DYj  

wrarr PETYPION No.4o37s-é4c3fr9/2063 (eiuqggé)

BETWEEN :

. sm. Ralia  Ready,

S/0. Shri,    .
Aged 6{)_ years'  C_Gn_t3'act§;)r, 
Residiafig at"  ,7"fH3£G,; »  Cdlany,
Near P965 '1' *Qu£irtc;s,,T {'3.1ci~--;.Iewarg' Road,
Gu1barga.585  .   

. Smt. VR_oheé1av ath.i,= A

W/o;R.K. Raddy,

 V "  Agad "43'"Fe31.'AS» 0cc':"Housew:fe,
 Rjo, vNQ.4.2',« 4,313., KHB Celony,
'  P 3' "Qu_a1j..~ters,

Guibargaw  102. : Petitioners

' "  Srj. Huléppa Heroor, Advocate)

P xi
4 .
if 



-2-

AND:

The Manager,
Bank of Barcada, Super Market,
Guiba1'ga~58fS 101.

(By Sri. A. Vijaykumar, Advocate) ;

This writ petition is fflé( } 227'" 

of the Constitution of India  ts dirrscftiie respondent

bank to rclcase the MC ,–bonds-i.i1–.favéLu’ of Pétitieiier.

This Writ petition -(id»’.11iI–‘_1g Qxi ‘fa: ‘prefiminaxy hearing
in ‘B’ gnup, this day, theCg;5’urt,f£1ad_¢1:1fx::.t”el1owing:–

The” 18* 3. contractor, while the
211$ petitionéf financial assistance from the

respondenfiballk the movable and immovable

“.a$s&.s’ réhayment of the monies while assigling the

in favour of the respoI1dent–ba.1’1k.
jféiiilakxnts due to the bank were settled under
«. _ one: tim€:.:’:5§ctf;1ement scheme by way of compromise, have
this writ petition for a. mandamus directing the

;f¢_$§)0ndent~ba11k ta release the LIC policy bonds.

2. The writ petition is opposed by filing siatement

of objections datm 13.01.2009 inter alia contending; thgi:

N! *i

V\.

-3-

the 35* petitioner being a defaulter in the

repayment of 102111, was dus Rs. 11,52,03′?-11

February 2002 leading ta filing of _Q..A_._N0.?9]”;’2®ié *t)sfQ1*t3;% ” A

the Debt Recovery Tribunal. It

Rs.88,{)0O/- being the su1Teié(:1y’e:jAvaitif:__ of LIC’-

policies, was appropriategi asgainst./ihe dues
in the 10am account ?.fif:3otice issued in
the month of H ‘ V’ ‘

3. in of averment made in the
statemex1i’=_&of is not countered by of

a re–joinder, xii: nse_d1’c,ss~ state that the petitioners are

“i103; to ths”‘rx’:E.-sf” of mandamus and consequenfly,

is Iiabls to be dismissed, as devoid of

merits, ‘V

Accaramgly, the writ petition is dismissed.

Sdf-3%
Fudqs

V11/~