pm
EN THE H161"! C(')l3R'F GP' E{ARNATP;KA
CIRCIIIT BEECH AT GHLEARGA
DATED THIS THE 19TH my 0:'? DEC-EMBER :2GQ_.§§ :»
BEFGRE
THE rsorrma: MR. JUSTICE s..,:§§3nUL"9zAzE€ g;g
WRIT PETITEQH HO. gag?/zeciggemfnafz *
BETWEEIV;
The Authorizrzé €i}fiir:;»:?:"'«.._ _'-- _ 3;
Sm" Siddeshwar Cr3:r3§3er:¥;tii;e ~Bm1L«: _VI.;!:::1___..-- if; . V
Sri Siddeshwaz" F$ééac'i_."~ _ ,
3i3s_px.:r-- 55:5 101 :1,_ 3 ~ 1J:«:1':*m:;~:::;;~.:;'::1;V;2;;:é.:;}?
AND:
81%;' Ka':'§11..£§fi~*sa_bV i*¥i3'umu§d§fi--«}"€o}i3_'1dar
'S/Q. E'*€ija;1*:1'o.d€§ii1 Rcjindar
Malxavcfif :44:-as; ' --
mdiff-f'%a:3'. .
' RESPONSE???
' : §¥}?§E:.P€?itiQn is fllcd under Arsicifis 2'26 :33 22*'? sf
; ffhc »(L_"on$ti%:r.;ti0:1 of Emilia, pmying to quash the Qrder cit.
._ "31';10.--.;(3G"E';'pa3$cii in .e\:'f§A No.13?[12007 at flmn--A and etc.
'"'i";his3 Writ Pefitirsn C-aming on far Preiiminary Hearing
f:1;;sgda;y», the C0111': made the ibilowingz
Ev
ORDER
In this Cass’, the petitioner has callctd in quC$:ti9::V..i§1u§ ‘
Qrder dated 31,10,203? passed ;’:iMmAS£\_«_
passed by ths Debt Recovery T:i1′;:1:s;3lV_A.(Ka1::;._a.taka) VV ”
Bangalore (for short ‘DRT3, x!;?11ért3.:b’:V’j.% (the
respondent lilldffr seCtiQa..V. 1″? $¢§ufifiS’afi3I; and
Recenstrtxction of v”‘»«Evf;fgrcem€nt cznf
Sacurity Intercsfi V’§}:;fifl”‘fV;+’;1′–.;-1′) has beau
aiiewed. 1 ” I A ‘
:2. E Counsel far the paritead
3. ” ..Pétiti:jr:ér _ ‘fiuthoriged Gffiarzr (sf Sr:
Siddssimza: C’¥é~«:§pe’1.”éz£i%é- Limited’ The? Bank in
.ti;u:fS{{ii:>§1 E5; ét1mitted.v1§§”‘«gov€med by the pmvisioens of the
Sociefizas Act, 195?, The pefifiener
haxi gizoceedmgss a.gai1:,1sA: thts: }.’€’E§§3(Z)fl(1€I1t for
‘ me-:}v:I’y” teztain Eoan amount under the pI'{)ViS§3:)IIS ef the
31;r:t’.. __Pé-ssessien nvstim was isauzffi agaixmt ‘£116: petitiener in
,’: I’EE§’1:)€(?t of the praperty in question under Sub–sccti-an 4 of
~ ; Sec’t:ion 13 of the Act. The respondent filsd. an appeal
E
{_,…_-¢
an
challenging the *said order before the DRT. The
allc-wed the appeal holding that the pe:§:ien¢;:{:”‘:1a;g_ . _
juzisdiction to initiate procesdings for recov¢r§r»t:{i” ”
amount under the provisions of’; t}1}::_ .I’it.{:’t–__ .’ ‘=.!:3.’, .A
connaction, the DRT has Ififlifid’ Q3]. !ivf’t’CiSiOIL»5Ih’vVHé1f$’.
Court in GREATER sommfv..:.§;:ogQPfi:R4§;frfV§ ‘; BANK
LIMITED vs… M.8. ufir:%En_*_” Pvf Limrrsn
AND mamas reported In the
said decision, .1’.1t1;:{t’t11<*: fiezid of €39-
operative 11:-,'1v~*: been covered by
the {,'~e1j;V1V:§.'";=,'L'iV .,V.:i."1.':'3ffiI:%..3'v'.}V_VV.'V,'V'f1v" f.(:* Entry 45, List 1 of
'?th V01? Co-operatime Banks
constitlgted {ivQ– 0§t:rative Societies Act enacted by
" «.1113 staiéS'we:3'u1d be covemd by Entry 32 of Ligt 2
<5f;7v'F;'5'*' §)f.th€ Constitufion of India.
f"'s«'T:;e_=:r.c;ff::e't"€, the action inftziatrzd by the peiitionfir
' agaiitzst £433:-vfttspsndent for me-rzvery of the': loan ameunt
' VVi;_r,3:'Vier iymvisions of the Act has been rightly set aside by
msersrmg liberty to the paiitiozz-gr to take
agxépropriate action far realisation of said amount in
" aecordmzce with the provisien of the Co-opfirative Societies
Ex;
Act. I :19 mat fifld merit in this writ petmon. Vi»1:4 ‘is;
accordingly dismissed. No costs.