IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT Bf:I$I’GAIIOI§E ‘
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY-0’F—- ides”
BEFORE;”1’.V ‘ I I I I
THE HON’BLE MR. ;;sjVf’a;*:a*~._1ct13:’;rx S BQI5A’N’I\IA”‘
ION No 11Ie’i’~r; :90.
; y ;u r: ,. :_u _a.a . ,._.’
WRIT PET!
BETWEEN:
V RAMANUJAM Is,/_c)_ G \riENKA’FASWEII§IY
AUEL) ABOUT._53 _ ‘
R/A NO. 18’9,LV,AI{SII1y11N1f\.?AS_ ‘ j
am’: CROSS, 5′”Fi..M;aIN i’\3EW’Ii3YAPPAI~iA;HALLI
om
BAN<3AL0RE;s:3_0 03:3 _ . PETITIONER
(BY sn"":'–s.'K_vQ GIIAI;f'xE?PITII'Y..IJ.,.EID
Sri: BIVS'. mean pmsap, ADVS)
' " STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION
I I = HI3A'DO_FE.'ICE #1/1, THIMMAIH ROAD
IBA1xzc3M,o'RE–56o 052 –
REPD.7_EiY ITS GENERAL MANAGER
2 .. KARNATAKA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION
‘M G ROAD BRANCH, NO. 48
19″ 85 2″” FLOOR, CHURCH SSTREET
BANGALORE – 560 001
REPD. BY ITS MANAGER
M18 BRITISH INSTRUMENTATION SYSTEMS
NO. 158, III CROSS, 1’31’ MAIN
BYAPPANAHALLI
I
,_
fl
_?..j._
OLD MADRAS ROAD V
BANGALO ~E- 569» 938
‘3? ‘Sfi:-B RUDRA’-JGWDA AND ‘ «. J V A
Sri: B NAGARAJAPPA, Anvs FOR R1 swear)’
THIS wan’ PETITION ISJFELED UNDER A13§’i°E..«V.LES 2J26&. n»
227 0’9 <."';<")i'\i'.-5'1'i":'U'i'ia')i'w" an-"**:N=aIA A PRAYER T0; '
QUASH THE LE'I"I'ER DTD. 23/2105 .v1DE'-Aux; C3 gAND THE
AUC":'T'iC3I\i NC:-T~:c:E cA1.1.;NG –m'n..' 10,'3f{'.5
ISSUED IN THE DAILY E~!.1_NDU AT ANX;
This Writ Petifion 1["C1v3l;.'1i»'.-.7'vV}_'£'2'.l_"i..VE1g, this day, the
Court mack:-. thgtifollowing :' ' ' * I .
writ oi'-ce1'tidm1'i .qi1va{§i1.,t}:c letter dated 28.2.%G-5,
is i1npugncr1V'at_Am:::m'1t-G and also the auction notice
£01: tcndé1'a———datcd 10.3.2005 which is impuglled at
tlrcc: petition.
:2… xhavc heard Sri B.S. Raghupraaad, learned 001111561
£1.33, the pet1’tio11e1′ and Sri B. Nagarajappa, learned counsel
3. Having heard the respective learned cojtiinselié V’
perusecl the writ papers.
4. Though several cOnj_;ei3.tionS”‘ h_aveVVbeei1_:”ti1*ged 011* V
behele of .1’-.e 1..,t1’….1..,z, .112 r:..:.sr «:2! –_e I t-..1 :11
‘ei:1s1dei~” ‘”171 “1 this ijeiffif-” §’fi
in question tI1e_:(:q;gn1111:1EiflC:z1:t¥ini.i I 2§$;’;?.20″5 as we as
the sL1bsety.–:en_t };§1:E11e gutmd that the
petitic§;1e1fvi’s’~ and therefore the
pmvié3jon._c>fi; t11_e– State Financial C’.orporat1’on Act
{for s11erti.t11e ‘Ac::’j invoked against a guamntor to
to Sale “tile V” prope1’ties collcerned without the
ac:eoIt’1i11g’ to ihe IV:-:Sj)()i1d’11t3, I11 yemi I”1f’:i”
ncmly and not the bormwer. In this regard, the
‘pefiiione1’ has relied on the judgment. of a Division Bench of
% @1119. C.’ou1’t in the ease of N. NARASIMHAIAH AND OTHERS
-v5- KARNATAKA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, REF.
1
if
BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, BANGALORE
Iepo11:edinILR 2003 KAR 3344. The Divisioii:’iZ!:ene1.1:_’
Court in the said decision had oorvisiiiieiierlv ‘of=t1ie
matter and had some .. up ii 1 A’ I I
beionging ion a Siiiety’ he sloiw-. V ‘
corporation invokingv power; of ‘the riot
wifliout the inteiventioil Lsaid decision of
the Division ]’3f.’-E7i1:f:.’i}’Of in appeal by the
Kajnataka _ in Civil Appeal
No.6 ..Ti1e: EiI:oIi’i:;–:1ee.S*:1p1e1ne Court by its older
datedi%.13;–3′. the juclgment rendered by the
.D3d._i_11 “_;f.1i_t::,iV_1 _-._ As such the law is now Well
so-ti%1″‘} mat t L it-1″rn”%a St”-te Pme.11e1a1 {.’er”orat1o11
. invoke Section 29 of the Act against the gllB.1’B11iZOI’.
iii thet View of the matter, the notice clatecl 28.2.2005
A.wliic11″”ie impugned at A1111exu1e–C to the petition and the
eoiiseqtlent auction notification which is inipugued at
I
‘1-
An11cxurt:–D cannot be sustaillcd and tl1~;:’ ~
aoc:oIdi11g1y quashed.
The unit petition is clispeged of ‘ififll ii,r:£’3- AC1._1’e*’.¢..=,VrVV as
costs.