Sri Vinay Bansal vs Mahindra Engineering And … on 26 February, 2009

 (BY'$Ri,€I2.SLRAV3,AAi3V.V)" """ 

V " 85 PRODUCETS Lmrmn,

~ V.  -- .M"v2ȤBa1 1>z,.,r2~'zE ROAD,
 PiMP§?i',«,PUNE 421 013.
 R39.' mi.-'ITS POWER 013' ATTORNEY HOLDER,
_V --._MR;--DAVI-D H.A'I'AR¥A,
'  VS/OEPERCY JEHANGERJEE HATARIA,
--« .' AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
 ._ GENERAL M-ANAGER -» ACCOU'£'N$«F'fNAN'CE,
" 'MAHINBRA ENGINEERING 85

IN THE men comm' 012* KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATEB THIS THE 2675 DAY OF FEBRUARY ~  2 K

BEFORE

THE HOWBLE MR.JLt$rIc13:3;$.?A*rIi;_: 
wnrr PETITION N0.;41R3 4§ j__@O8u 1 g'   A':
BETWEEN: '  'A L '  H H

1.

SRININAYBANSAL, V
S/O.SUREI*¥BRA KUMEAR AGARW.;A1., – _
AGED ABOUT3QYE”A_Ri?~, :’ :

R/o.No.23/1,1.a.:;M1;:2’Qssp;. _ ‘
SHAN1’INA(%R;,’
BANGALORE 02?,

2. SMvT.SMI’FAfB_AN&AL,_

W/0.VINAY B1,wsALV,:’–__ – _ ‘V

AGED ABOUT .31 YEARS}

No.23/2, LAX.MI~ROAD, ‘ .. ‘

S£~IAN’I’INAGAR;a. V

Banaawaa 560 027;” ‘ :PE’I’I’I’iONERS

1. ‘A ,n&AH1r;fi§?;aT:ENG1NsER1NG

REGQ. OFFKTE AT 1510.145,

PRODUCTS LIM{TED.

2. M / S. S.S.EN’l’ERPR§SES,
NO.9/9, 13′? FLOOR, H.S}DDAiAH ROA9,

_ ;friEVCoU1駒:~MAD¢_E THE é%.>LLow12vG;

.v,_.44_’ExecutionVv'(:L1asc No.517/ 2006 is challenged in this writ petition
‘gxbjcctors. By the order, the Executing Court has
.,__’ ‘i?.ssii£d sale procflamation and sale warrant fixing the spot sale

V Lon 5.12.2003 and Court sale on 16.12.2008. This comm; iniua’ 11y

BANGALORE 560 002,
BY ITS MANAGER.

3. MRSJIIMALA m:v1suRN1NDERAr_2AmzAL,-_’ H ”
W/O.MR.SURNINDER KUMAR AGARWAL, j; * =
No.23/z,1.AxMzRoA.D, *
SHANFINAGAR, .

BANGALORE 550 027.

4. MR.C.R.SURESI–i,

NO. 1155, 22313 MAIN ROAD,

BANASHANKARI 219:» S’rAGE,—-._ j;~ _
BANGALORE 560 070. -.;’ARE:’:1.PONDENTS

{av SMT.NANDI’l’A ,s2A1,D1PL;fé;”‘Ai§*-c’.”E<}R C/E25; SRI.C.V.NAGESH,
ADV. FOR R-4, R-3 s§:3vED:;__ l\I RKIANDVER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF’ ‘;’;{.13..Tcbv:s:§fI*§1I_JT1o1$I m.DV1A5′ PRAYING TO QUASH THE
022913312 a:>A’15E:3’5’_~1?j.io%.2oé8.__ MADE :1»: EXECUTION CASE
No.51?/2do5’oN’=I%1»-i§;’.”;v11;1::<..§3:2?,f1iHE 19m ADDIT¥ONAL cm crvn,
JUDGE AT Bfii1?~EGAI;d§€E; x%11313:'_';¢.NNExu1=2E«E AND ETC.,

=wR:T"'P2:fi}:VfrIQ§J COMING on FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,

L% ._§) :w:1evr.'.(–i'.*:-'1':{I::'eii 17.10.2008 passed by the Executing Court in

granted an intcn'm order on 20. 1 1.2008 by observing as under:

%,

gperiocjlof Infact, this onier passed based on the

famount payahic another sum of Rs.10,00,000/~ shall be paid

3

“P1-ima facie there is no merit in the.
contentions urged. However, as the ;. it
counsel for the petitioner submits that o;;:”of V” ‘
total amount of about Rs.49 a
sum of Rs.21 lakhs is iiaiildi ‘A
petitioner is pnepared to pay «another .
Rs.10 Iakhs within a pc1iod«e:of,four.Weeks, ”
ends of justice, I deem it Vapgifiapriate stay tfie
sale prodamatiozl in the
execution pmceedingf;’i’fo1′ weeks
on conditiori igiae to the
1″ s’uif._u_«_1o£. Rs; within four
weeks’: *

” iiiféeiiét :s.i2;é0os.”

Pursuant the “flie petitioner has paid the said
amount’ Subsequently, by order dated
.18. it was clear that out of the balance amount

gaya:91¢,ei of Rs. 1o,oo,ooo/- shall be paid within a

‘«.___sz1bmiss:ioi§.’3~made by the counsel for the petitioner. Based on
interim. order came to be extended. for a further period

ii”: of weeks subject to the condition that out of the balance

within a period of four Weeks.

/Q)/.

2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for

that petitioner has paid Rs.5,00,0{)()/- and ébeé

pay the remaining Rs.5,00,000/-.

eflbrts are being made by

amount. Counsel for the zespondei1t:..”s:1E’>Ia1itV;<3.~.tVJ:'\A'"at:hias the
petitioner is due in a suzfief Counsel
for the petitioner states thet of the correct
withstanding due,'i!ee' earnest efforts to
discharge the éieiblgrassible.

3. ‘__heI7e interim order granted

earlier has” «V has not pend’ the entire

Rs§..1f)A, ()II)”,O()x()/ as ordered by this Court on

.i8.1,;i;e2edéfwi1hjn a of fbur weeks from 18.12.2008. He

Re!S,O0,000/-. The balance amount now due

appears Rs.13,00,000/– as ascertained by the

” eeumsel for. {he xespondent subject to verification.

4′.A There is no point in keeping this writ pctifion pending.

T ” in Vi€W of the bonafides shown by the petitioner by

[paying the amount during the pendency of this writ petition and

aiso in View of the submission made by the learned counsel for

%/

the petitioner stating that earnest cfibrts will ~
aument the necessaxy resources and (1i.sc1_1_arge”
deem it appropriate to provide a last
pay the entire dues on or before 1″ AVp’ri1z if .
paid on or before 1″ April 2009, the of

the property shall not be amount is not

paid within that timc,,_it is V0pfi:l.:1::v.tc;._V§i_;§ Court to
proceed further in é disposed

“”” ._

of.

JL