High Court Karnataka High Court

The Liquidator vs The Union Of India on 11 August, 2009

Karnataka High Court
The Liquidator vs The Union Of India on 11 August, 2009
Author: Mohan Shantanagoudar
THE I-iON'BLE MR.JUST1CE v1f»:9HAx"3HAxTANAe«{>U1§AR,  » ''

WP NGKBE »'i35529{}S

IN THE HIGH comm' or KARNATAKA
cmctm BENCH AT Di-IARWAE) _
DATED THIS THE 1111»: ms? 05* AUGUST;----3§()9~ ,[.: .

BEFORE I

 

wan' PETITION No.31¥1%3£g[g008 ('@3349-:S.1v; } H 

Between:

3.

THE LIQUE DATQR
MARATM. C'O--OPERA'I'lVE
§4I.$aRA'i'HA GALL-1v  
§«:uBL1--20.   I

'ia." V  __ 

KER. 33' §<A.L2Em,AHr.i_E'D_ S*;41;::_';_:;m 

AG-ED ABQLTT 54 i2*§;AR:3,é '- '

{f}€)'.,C:AS'S'I' R§;<::r$'I";2A§'e   _

<:;P.C:3'--{':*2»:3_'.T*{
§§Qi3i¥Z'>A"T<i}R'E.iARe§,THA.*~C{;-'OPERATEVEZ mmsz LTEE
HUBEJ} :';"_=8£')0Z30." ' 

mtzgrag. s::,0PERA*::*:vE BANK LIMlTE$

 '~':Ȣa,RATHa Ganmfl %%%%% .. .
 HUESLI-$33..'

" ?;1'_E!E?*'~,_E':{,, 1N;::2~:A.;2G£; GENERAL zvzabzaaaa
 $"§<:c::.b:C:»_m1%431:$3é§2£}€}8

1%.}

2. BHIMARAO
S/C} JYC)'i'ifit'5t. SHINDE
£§.GE'.54 YEARS,
C3CC:GOV'i'. SERVICE
RIO OPP. T9 KC» PARK,
DHARWAD.

3. THE DESTRECT CONSUMER DISFUTES RE;9:2Es5$ALvté:31é£;MV' 
VEDYAGERE 1 ~ « * = ' V

DHARWAED.     

my Sri.Prnful1a smug, Adv for R2, 
121, 3 «:3

This petition is fllfiiiilildtii'---~9:rfiC1ES%A 226  227 of the
Constitution of India prayirig to fstri_1{é' d_c~.w'n thc sub-sect.i0I1 (2)
and (3) of Sc(:.27n of "i.;'€1er~- C.;:::;.si11Iic3L1f .,F'1=::_stect:ion Act as
unconstitutional and void and :=_:t<:.  ' ' ' --  

"I'his__p§tifi9 n 'fa:  hearing, this day,
the Courfé madc3..t21¢ f0;'§ic}W_i11gé' 

1.

Pgtifiofiérs ba=§.re: _ for striking dawn sub scctions (2)
iiificficruitxi ‘2?…«0f the Consumer Pmtectieu Act as

–;}.’I::v:;t¢::$ji.;$”E;it2_;1Vitz:mzalE”‘a=e11ci void and 3330 hava sought for quashiug

thé’ zifréstv issued agaiust ihezm dataé 3G.10.2OQ8 in

4 ‘,gxec§¥§gn”‘r;gs§ 1’*«ia.498{2Gfl’?.

. “f*}’1c3 records rsveai that mspczndent No.2 hemrixz has

.__ “E:1é:§§:+$ited certain sums of maney in petitionmkfiank, Ever:

V.aft,er mamrity, the amounis with interest were not Itpaié ta

respendent $20.3 hertzink Thus, respondcni $40.2 had files}

1′ E
x’-/\

EV? 3\f<}31436i '2(}€38

U3

Qamplaint before: District Ccmsumer Disputes Redxfééai' _

Dharwaéi, in complaint No.399;:200?.w jrhe sai:i"cvc§ii1p:1é5i1t was ~ 'V

allewed and petitioners were diIfé'Qv"[:t(;1_…,tA.r;'i "a gef

Rs.3,89,984/– with intctrtzst a:»T'z;% p.a,_i:i1i

from compensation and costs. %§zidV"(}i¥}':VEf:rv':}1e1: s§§ attained
finality. As the pefiuégigxs thg éfixount in
pursuance to thgorder -'i:1.}v1v§:'AA*».:'_{g':'<)§fi";'sumer Forum,
respcmcient Ne_;'2"'j:;jTf3§§:d yu/s 27 of the
Consumcr fiat, €1;%e"sé:id Execution Petition,
arrest petitioners, Themafter,
this 'Q h

3. isms c:<:~;1:it'-:::."~.;;1;é" case of M/S.SHANTINIE{ETA1'~§

I-T '"§~;QU§3{N<:;~.Pmumagfrspé vs. BRI'G.{RE'I"D) J.N.DEVAIAH in

"«?{ and czoxmectzd matters dispossfi 0f on

upheid the vaiidity 0f sub sections {2} and {3}

Secfifizd 2'? of ihfi Consumer ?10iecti0n Act, 1986.

'€:¢~.t;2_s§é;;_ue11£iy, this first §:"a}e*er mastic in {$516 writ pstitian (1063

K 21923 smvim:-. in View ef the aferxmaid erder. This court

rsspectiveiy agrecg with the jusigment rendarcd in

w.mqg.ma; 2698,

3

Kmfi

WE’ :\é’€:.31~435:’2(}{}S

4. In the aforementioneé judgment, it is also rule:;i,;t}:_:1’a1;»_i£i1e

pmvisisns of Code: of Crizninal Procedure should’.’:5§§”¢¢:1;–gj:e::;i_f .

with while issuing arrfist war1’aJ:1?:._HM SiIlCE.””fI1-Ei::”‘£)IV'(‘2′(:€:ti1].z’T_t:’_

catmtempiated under the Code of

followed in those cases, the msgémfive f£3l_’|i111.S s£».é;t*:;~’:’VV&dVi;fectg§:ci to u a

follow the pIUCC{}.L11″€ prescribed the; of }C1imi1:1a}

Procedure whiie issuing fi1!£*3. E”1IT€j,S’:t

I3. Lcarnsd CQU.%TKSfiI relying upcm the
said portion gaf ihg ;¥$1r._’r1-_er’ fur fizmitfing the matter to the
Consuméz’ ‘£7or:.1£}:£’V’ii§–.f§3.e’ pF()Cf3d1.1l”l°3 under the Code of

Srimilial PItc¢c§:;:é}’ S11bII}.iSSiOI1 canmet be accepted

inas31=..§;c}1*.as iI2 :’;},ff;is matter, the proceeiure prescribed lllldftl’

.§:1é:11jnaI Proceaiure is followed The ordershest

notice W33 issued in ‘tha Execution Pefifion

V V’ _ :9 t§ié—-§ud_gme§it debtorsg Q12, 2238,2008 judgmfint debtcxr N::>.1

I L’ eafiteféé agpearamce through his advacate namely

§};R;%~.?E3 adI*e. Ha has filfid the meme: alang with one document

01:1; that flay’ The matter was afiljomned to 85.09.2008 far

fflfihfil’ hearing. O11 (}S.09:Q(}(}8, no payment was made: by the

judgmant debtflrs and arrest Warrant was issuaci against

W’

W’? N€s.3143€S:’2()(}8

jufigment debtcszs. Even afier four adjouI*mments§;:«..fh§:V_’ _

warrants were not served on the judgnlpnt dsbtii-;*$;:<.'I'h%§1'cfor§§4

the matter was adjcnlrned from

writ petition is filed.

6. From thr: above, c1¢a1″‘*%1;1e debtors
wens: given adequate u “~h¢a;rd before the
Executing Cou1.i,. said that the
pmceéum of contained in
the Codgvof arrest Warrant was

nct fen-iwed. ‘secom gmund also fails.

73 _}~F¥;:>x§z€:vLE1*, to the fact that the Bank is

V’ b¢:A.}iq1:£idai€:’€;-;fi”‘4’T;Vf¥#f1{’31’i$. ‘(v;§§:’1f5..T:i:r10rs oppfirtunity of bitiiilg hetaxri. Accordingly,

fi.hE fc$fi9£;?i;1g erdfir is made:

” ; ~..The wrii: petition is dispgseé eff. Petitianers ghali be

one mare: epptsrtuzxity of being heave} befs:-re the

u hhéfiéecufing Court The pefiiioners $1133} apgaar before the 3″‘

msponéeut–I~?’0mm on 14.09.2009 at 1 1 am. No fmsh noticas

\V«*\

W? NQ3143652008

(’71

need be issueei to the petitiancrs. 4’ .

proceedings sh-all {aka place in accordagqcgj witi1’Vla\»’%:

BC ceercive steps Shall be taken againé: the’ ‘