{"id":20719,"date":"2010-08-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-08-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-s-m-suparies-nut-merchants-vs-the-karnataka-bank-ltd-on-27-august-2010"},"modified":"2018-06-24T09:32:08","modified_gmt":"2018-06-24T04:02:08","slug":"ms-s-m-suparies-nut-merchants-vs-the-karnataka-bank-ltd-on-27-august-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-s-m-suparies-nut-merchants-vs-the-karnataka-bank-ltd-on-27-august-2010","title":{"rendered":"M\/S S M Suparies Nut Merchants vs The Karnataka Bank Ltd on 27 August, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
M\/S S M Suparies Nut Merchants vs The Karnataka Bank Ltd on 27 August, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: Aravind Kumar<\/div>\n
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE\n\nDATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF AUGUST \n\nBEFORE\n\nTHE I-ION'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND   u  'V\n\nMISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL 1\u00a5Io.:3'sA2i57 G3?' 2\u00e9c3\"('ir:~3.>.(':;%.T_j\n\nBETWEEN:\n\nM\/S. S.M. SUPARIES, NUT M.EI--\"x'CHAN'I'S._\nNo.5, \"A\" BLOCK, Apmc   _ \"\nSHIMOGA BY ITs'PRfoPRIETR1X~--... j \u00bb  \" ~ . _\nSMT. ANNAPOORNA,  ' . =  \"\nWIFE OF RV. MoHAN,_ '\nAGED ABo'cT..36 YEARS;  ., \nR\/AT. AN_AG'gj)DIGE-- ViLL\"AG}::,_ \" \"\nSHEDAGARU-.PC)S'F,_  *1.RT;1%IA}LALL1TALUK,\n\nSHIMGQA::_D;STRICTIff_- \u00ab_ \n' \"\"\"   \"   3 ...APPELI.ANT\n\n{B\u00a7'x.sfi._ G. ve:\u00a7\"1;a\u00a2acfia:A,--~Adv.,)\n\nA_1_'IE=._\n\n._  KARNAT'  'BANK LTD .,\n\n'I~iAvn\\JG'\u00ab1Ts HEAD OFFICE AT\n\n \"  THROUGH ITS\n BRANCHfOF'FICE AT A.P.M.C.\n\n f$;H51'MOGA, REPT. BY\n\nA \"-...ITS.__MA1\\iAGER.\n\n...RESPOND EN'IE'?'\n\n\"   Sri. K.V. Shyama Prasad, AcIv.,}\n\n\n\nPrincipal Civil Court of original jurisdiction\nin a District and as such execution V.\nwas not maintainable. K H H\nii) Further, under sec.4:Ed,\"mit\"is \nthat where with Vrespectdt \nagreement any   v\"Psart\nhas been made   alone\nshall have  arbitral\nprocceediiigsiangi\ufb01i applications\nA  and the\ntttt  be made in that\n\n court and;'in\"no' other Court.\n\n.. VvO'n raisi1igV___i;'hoese queries, Registry noted that\n\nV':Princi.paE_Dist.rict_Judge, Shimoga, has no jurisdiction to\n\nadjudicdated tdhede\ufb01iecution petition and accordingly, it was\n\n ' 'posted befor.ex the Court. By order dated 14.11.2000, the\n\n  iPri.ncCi'pal District Judge kept open the point regarding\n\n0\"\u00bb__\"jurisdiction and ordered notice on judgment debtors.\n\nM  \n\n\n\nOn service of notice Judgment Debtors l and V-2-._haVe\n\nappeared and contested the execution petitio_n_._\"~   ~\n\n4. 011 9.8.2001, Principal'District~\u00ab.:}j'..1ldge',has\"\u00bb \n\nissued sale notice. pursuant to which, 'iitw'o_\"'prop'erties\nwere sold at spot. Court aucti-on\/ sale \u00bbvas'l.con_'d--ucted on\u00bb '\n\n3.8.2002.\n\n5. On 19.1o.2ooe_,v--deb to be filed\nunder Order'  'ebyfjltlhe 18* judgment\ndebtor    who is also the\nwife l   to set aside the sale\ncontending  irregularities in the sale.\n\nTheg.-said kapvpiichatlo-nlvleame to be resisted by the\n\n. .,.._,dei:reeiel1ol'der. Trial Court after considering rival\n\n its order dated 16.12.2002 dismissed\n\nthe-..appgvlicat~ion, which order is assailed in this appeal.\n\n*  Heard the learned advocates appearing for the\n\n   W\n\n\n\n7. Sri.Venkatacha1a learned Counsel appearing for\nthe appellant first J.Dr would contend that Principal\n\nDistrict Judge did not have the jurisdiction  _\n\nthe execution petiton and the objection\"rai-s:ewd\"'by'--the W 2\n\noffice ought to have been uphe1d.;4in::'Viej'i2vdof.V\n\nread with Section 42 of the':Arb.itrat1on and'jCo.I1\u00abe,i1Viation \n\nAct, 1996. He would .  eirectitioritipetition\nought to have been  to have been\nreturned for   v.:th'e\".Court having\njurisdiction;  submission by\ncontendingctddsdection 2{e) would clearly\n jurisdiction to entertain a\n\nsuit _ of originai'j.uris'diction would be the Court which\n\ndd.\"-would :,,,'\"be\"i' ..entitd1e\"d\"dVto consider and adjudicate an\n\n by the claimant for execution of a\n\ndec.ree.__>  iivould further contend that in the instant\n\n : case ezzecution petition ought to have been fiied before\n\n  'Fri-nddcipal Civii Judge, (Sr.Dn] Shimoga since the said\n\n  ~-idourt has the jurisdiction to try a original suit of this\n\n\n\nnature. in support of his submission he relies---__upon\n\nthe judgment of the Hon'b1e Apex Court.\u00abi.1_i\n\nCoking Coal Ltd. Vs. M\/s. Annapurna \n\ncase reported in AIR 2008 S';CQ\"2Q2'--8  i\n\njudgment of the Delhi High' Court \n\nDELHI 14 [Virendra saigi\ufb01i. I\/V's.' M\/s}. is\ufb01ijiciztizaitt\nJamnalal) and see}ts.._A_for_r'daiioufingi'-.of thtediatiapeal and\n\nsetting aside the order  .ii,;4gi;;ecuting Court.\n\n8.   ._'_.':'31fi.i'I:Vi;;'3hyarnaprasad iearned\ncounseI.t._.cva_}5peariijig forjivthe~....resi)ondent decree holder\nWould...Asupport'the'iordeifpassed by the executing Court\n\nand conte.1idVsVvV'i'e:ading of Section 2(e} of the\n\n Arbitra_tion A\u00a2:;.t199e it would emerge that it is the\n\n :'\u00abCixri_I Court of the District which has\n\nj'L1ris'dictioi_1_ tsottry execution petition and when it is read\n\n with .. reference to the word \"District\" the execution\n\nA  ioetit_ion presented in the instant case by the decree\n\n hoider before the Principal District Judge, Shimoga\n\n\ufb01r\"\n\n\n\ncase referred to supra is inapplicable to the facts --of the\n\npresent case since dicta laid down by the \n\nunder Section me) of the Arbitration   \n\nwould not have any application to p_the,\u00abfaVcts_ iofilthe\n\npresent case as the Words udsecdinin 10996\u00bb Act.4\"--are--.V\n\ndifferent. He would also subinit thathdapplicationdd filed'\n\nunder Order 21 Ru1fe..V_\ufb0290_.*it's'eif';was_p.not0Vrnaintainable\nsince it is filed by the J.Dr and as\nsuch she did 'hare uanfdindependent right\nover the  as such he seeks for\nrejectioniiv   heard the learned\nadvocates\" the parties following points\narise for  .0\n\n {ii   the application filed under Order 21\n\nit \u00bb. Riiie 90 is maintainabie'?\n\n(ii) '  .:Whether the execution petition in\n\nEx. 1 7\/ 2000\nPrincipal District Judge. Shirnoga'?\n\nwas rnaintainable before\n\nQ\/\/'\n\n\n\n[iii] Whether the order passed by the Principal\nDistrict: Judge in execution \ndated 1s--12m200o is liable to be arrir;:1\u00a2a't;i \n\nreversed?\n\n(iv) To what order'?\n\n9. Retguestion No.1--,:In\u00bb so\" far -as dc-o\ufb01'tention\"'\n\nregarding the maintainability:ddc_:'of'V\"-\u00bbtAthe ddappiication is\nconcerned same is tai\u00a7e.nfiip at first\ninstance itself   this point will\nhave the   points. Though Mr.\n  contention before this\nCourtz\"fo:r\" the .\u00bbit is seen that at the first\n\ninstance v'surhen'a.pp1icat'ion Was filed by the first J.Dr it\n\n wa's\u00abV.oh\"'betha1f of Vadddproprietary firm and was represented\n\n    Srnt.Ar1napoorna. in the said capacity\n\napp1ic,a't'ior;' in question has been filed by her and not in\n\n the cabacity of being Wife of second J.Dr. Even\n\nd\ufb01dotherwise by reading of Order 21 Rule 90 it would\n\nit \" -\"emerge that any person entitled to share in rateable\n\nmi\n\n\n\ndistribution of assets would be entitled to object to the\n\nsale of property and as such applicant. would be entitled\n\nto seek for setting aside the sale. In the in'slta.IV:t_'__icVasje\u00bb.,\n\nfirm being the Judgment Debtor it  he -A\n\nentitled to seek rateable dis,tribution--os\u00bb  \n\nproceeds in execution proceedingslgln view\"oftl_1e  \n\ncontention of Sri.Shyampras'ad .learned:l_'Couv{I1sel for\nrespondent cannot be\"\u00abacc_e1;\u00a7teciVan'd'L'itiis__hereby rejected.<\/pre>\n
Question No.1.~is hel.d–V–in[ffavoAur” appellant and<\/p>\n
against  ._  <\/p>\n
:i=.0.= and 3: These two questions<\/p>\n
being   are being taken up for<\/p>\n
 considercztion “tog_e_ther_ In order to consider rival<\/p>\n
 ‘ e.oi1-t.e11tions.Araised by the learned Advocates it would be<\/p>\n
neclessarydito..5’extract relevant provisions of law pressed<\/p>\n
 into service namely Section 2[e) and Section 42 of the<\/p>\n
A Arljitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and Section 2(c)<\/p>\n
  of the Arbitration Act, 1940 which reads as under:<\/p>\n
M<\/p>\n
1}<\/p>\n
Section 2(e) of 1996, Act<\/p>\n
“2.Definitions._[i) in this Part. un1ess~.r:’j’\u00ab.._l”‘-<\/p>\n
the context otherwise requires._<\/p>\n
(a) to (d) xxxxx<\/p>\n
[e] “Court” means the prin_cipa.;l’ Civil <\/p>\n
Court of original Ajurisdictionlinv -.1 ” <\/p>\n
district. an’d__v”‘–i1z1cludves
\nCourt in exereise of its”\n<\/p>\n
origina1’*\u00bb~ .’CiVil.  having
\njurisdietion it    the
\nV e ilqiiestiolns’ g V a sub} ect-
\n  of :5-,,rl:l}itration if the
\n    the subject-\n<\/p>\n
tttt ” ‘V  alulsiiit, but does not
\n‘   civil Court of a grade
\n” _  such principal Civil
\nV  _ “or any Court of Small<\/p>\n
Caiises; ”\n<\/p>\n
 1. .5ea\u00a2:ti\u00e9sn:r;g of 1996, Act<\/p>\n
‘  Jurisdiction.WNotwithstanding<\/p>\n
 anytP1i’ng contained elsewhere in this Part or<\/p>\n
inxany other law for the time being in force,<\/p>\n
it  ll\ufb02where with respect to an arbitration<\/p>\n
agreement any application under this Part<\/p>\n
has been made in a Court, that Court alone<\/p>\n
4\/<\/p>\n
shall have jurisdiction over the arbitralh<\/p>\n
proceedings and all subsequent applicati0nusl.__u”e_<\/p>\n
arising out of that agreement  <\/p>\n
arbitral proceedings shall be made <\/p>\n
Court and in no other Courft\ufb02.\n<\/p>\n
Section 2(c) of 1940, Act  <\/p>\n
“2. I)efinitions.’M;;.Ii:’i’*..lthis VAct,_”~_1,1ii-lvelss it<\/p>\n
there is a1’1yihl}’1,f_;\u00a7 1*t%pugr1\u00e9rr1t ii1VLthelsubjCQt} or<\/p>\n
cor1text.W
\n{a) to {lo} V xxX.x>g_ H _ 9 V _
\n[cl ‘l’g,f1Ci.i:i’i’_”i .:i:he’a1is’.j_’~.aC ‘fcivsi Court<\/p>\n
 to decide the<\/p>\n
____ M ii’  ” the subject\n<\/p>\n
— the reference if the
\n been the subject-\n<\/p>\n
” ._m211:vtieli~~\u00b0:of a suit, but does not
\nthe of<\/p>\n
under<\/p>\n
for purpose<\/p>\n
arl.)i.i1’a.ti.on proceedings
\n Section 21 include a Small Cause<\/p>\n
Court. ”\n<\/p>\n
C. if. The cont.e.11i.io11 of Sri.\\\/enkatachaia that words<\/p>\n
  f_’Prir1cipal Civil Court” referred to in 1996 Act. is<\/p>\n
to be<\/p>\n
 ~~v-“read in conjuriction with the sueceeciing words in the<\/p>\n
Q”\n<\/p>\n
same section wherein it has been stated that Civil Court<\/p>\n
which has the jurisdic\ufb02on to decide the subjeejtVrn2_it’ter<\/p>\n
of a suit, would mean a Court which ..A’t&’o111d’vt:”h2\ufb01v–*.9 <\/p>\n
“Original Jurisdiction” to tryv~a”‘s11Ait -‘uitn <\/p>\n
course if there was no arbitration d\u00a7spute’a_rid,Vit _<\/p>\n
Court of original jL11″isdictio;\ufb01V.eDwhteh.  be”<\/p>\n
entitled to adjudicate”  app’licnati’o’n_._is to be considered
\nin the background   “of the Horrble
\nSupreme  in Coal Ltd’s case
\nreferred  the learned counsel for
\nthe   22 which reads as
\nunderf’  ” V V C    C<\/p>\n
C4 for the foregoing reasons as
\n iaIso–A.theVChirtctir1g precedents are of the opinion
\n   Court has no _jartsdiotion to entertain
\nxtitese”lajaplications. The Registry, therefore, is
\ndmit\u00e9a to send the records to the Court of<\/p>\n
C’ C-CV1,strict Judge. Dhanbad who in turn is directed<\/p>\n
to transfer the case to a court having appropriate
\njurisdzlction. The court concerned is requested to<\/p>\n
dispose of the objection filed by the appellant<\/p>\n
ea\/’<\/p>\n
herein as expeditiously as possible and not later
\nthan three months jrom the date of receipt’e’,_.Q,’i”.<\/p>\n
records”.\n<\/p>\n
12. Sri.Venkatacha1a would contend—t.h:atvHonfbie”  <\/p>\n
Supreme Court having found that arbiitraticoittiawardpnot.’<\/p>\n
being sustainable remitted the Vtmattepr the <\/p>\n
District Judge, Dhanload  ativyiit and a
\nfurther direction    Judge to
\ntransfer the precpordsx’ proper
\n  only mean that
\n iu\ufb01sdiction to try a suit. He
\nwou1N,,S\\u-P_rni\u00a7  by the Hon’b1e Supreme<\/p>\n
Court,  app1jI.._ed~.,_to’~.–the facts of the present case the<\/p>\n
  on-ixyiconcisxsioniwaeeording to him which can be drawn is<\/p>\n
   “Civil Judge {Sr.Dn} Shimoga is the Court<\/p>\n
  original jurisdiction to try a suit with<\/p>\n
 unlimited jurisdiction which has to try the execution<\/p>\n
 in question and no other court. As such he<\/p>\n
   subniits that execution petiton ought to have been filed<\/p>\n
W<\/p>\n
before the said Court. liameiy Principai Civii Judge<\/p>\n
(SI’.D}.’1] and not the Principal District Judge, Shinio\u00e9a,<\/p>\n
13. This Court in the case of Haiti  <\/p>\n
an occasion to consider the issiieregarcling. jiuvrisaietiovnn<\/p>\n
of the Courts to try petition filed   <\/p>\n
1996 Act and While iriter’i0retingVh ‘tIrie’~.1:\u00a7’3*o{2’1iVeioriVs. of”<\/p>\n
Arbitration and Co.iic:i.1_iati_on  to the<\/p>\n
following effect:\n<\/p>\n
“A  reclsiing Sections 34 and<\/p>\n
2&3} So)”   intakes’. it clear that an<\/p>\n
 has to be filed in
\nthe:iojlorigiriatjurisdiction in a
\ndielriet  include any Civil Court<\/p>\n
‘C of a inferior to such Principal Civil<\/p>\n
V’ C.  or  Court of Small Causes.\n<\/p>\n
3  C.  Section 2(0) of the Act, 1940 and
\nA  and 14 of the Act, Supreme Court<\/p>\n
 .   guru Nanak Foundation Vs. M\/s
\n‘Rattan singh and Sons, observed that in the
\n absence of an arbitration agreement if a
\ndispute was required to be resolved by<\/p>\n
initiating proceedings in a Civil Court that<\/p>\n
6?’<\/p>\n
16<\/span><\/p>\n
Court which will hauejurisdiction to entertain___<\/p>\n
the suit alone would have jurisdiction
\nentertain the aurard and the arbitration-\u00ab.’i’rji:
\nview of Section 14(2) would have to file <\/p>\n
award in that Court.”\n<\/p>\n
And in conclusion it was heidto  lfollowingg effectV:’=–4 <\/p>\n
“Learned Dis   i J udge. C  r
\nconsidering Section 14,\u00abof  Ciour”ts~A’2:3ict
\nhas neither  (2) of
\nSection 14anor   the Civil
\nCourts   Whatever,
\nthat    o those sections
\n to say that the
\n had no jurisdiction to
\nenteritatini But the question that<\/p>\n
_–would”  case is as to whether in
\n  given'”c’ir:>-urnstances of the case, District
\n  Cotr;rt.:at__Raichitr’ could have entertained the
\n jor execution and ordered for<\/p>\n
attochsrrient of mo ueables. ”<\/p>\n
 {tis  noticed that contention now put forward by<\/p>\n
  *i.Mr.Ktenkatacha1a is on the basis of the judgment of the<\/p>\n
W<\/p>\n
Hon’bie Supreme Court rendered in Bharat Coking Coal<\/p>\n
Limited referred to supra. In the said judgrn\u00abe’11tf–.it”-is<\/p>\n
noticed that judgment and award that   ‘<\/p>\n
passed was under Arbiti-ation Ac.t.,~~~i.94i0  it it<\/p>\n
Section 2{e) of 1996, Act was referreiciiii <\/p>\n
time Arbitration Act, 1996V\u00bbAet:.,had.’Co_meuintoilforieej. Iris’<\/p>\n
the said case Hon’b],e_.Suprer:ie=Cot1rt has…aiso taken
\nnote of the fact of Seetiori  been interpreted
\nby the Apex   Co. Ltd’s case
\nand at  judgment it has been
\nheld to the aim.\n<\/p>\n
   that such a View has
\nV_ _been’~ tfake”;–1  this Court in National
\n A__Iu1r1ini1j1:1,V_ _____ Co. Ltd. Vs. Pressteel &
\nFa.bri:e’a.tions (P) Ltd. and Another [[2004}1
\n   Statiligr
\n In regard to the forum before
\nwhich the appiication for modification or
\nsetting aside the award is concerned, we<\/p>\n
find no difficulty in coming to the<\/p>\n
eonc}usion_ that in \\fi\u20ac’.”W of the provisions<\/p>\n
W’<\/p>\n
of Section 34 read with Section 2 {e} of the
\n1996 Act. it is not this Court which
\nthe jurisdiction to entertain_….._lj
\napplication for modi\ufb01cation of
\nand it could only be
\ncourt of original  jui’is:?:lict..ior,l1″~.
\nconternpiated under Secti_on 2  the:
\nAct, therefore. ii*i=:T”our it
\napplication xi? 1\\.ot”” lrniailntainahllev…before<\/p>\n
this Court.”   7<\/p>\n
14. By rcadiviig cg-fl  Act it would
\nemerge that   defined to mean
\nand  in a district. It is
\nalso  Section 2{e) it excludes<\/p>\n
certain couiftsl. The exclusioii clause excludes any Civil<\/p>\n
. it l*Co’urt i–n–feri.or to  Principal Civil Court or any Court<\/p>\n
I oi.._iSrria,ll\u00ab._.Ca_i3~se.s to exercise jurisdiction or to entertain<\/p>\n
the\u00ab.._pet_iti0;oF’or application under the Act. The exclusion<\/p>\n
 iysyyspecific. Thus, a conjoint reading of inclusion and<\/p>\n
it ‘exclusion clauses of Section 2(e) it would emerge that<\/p>\n
l  ~~}-egislature in its wisdom have thought necessary to vest<\/p>\n
W<\/p>\n
the jurisdiction to decide the questions forming the<\/p>\n
subject matter of a suit under the Ai’bitratioIfi~_.b’and<\/p>\n
Conciliation Act, 1996 with the “Principal  <\/p>\n
of a “District” and by excluding__any_ 4oth_ei”llCivi} Court K”<\/p>\n
a grade inferior to such l3rinci”pal7.’_AC’i\\\/ill”C’o:.:rtA <\/p>\n
Court of Small Causes.  vv’ord~’Y\u00a75rin’c;ipa1Civil’-C’<\/p>\n
Court” is examinedvvith Voreference to Juristliiction of
\n“District Court” as’ d_efined’ ::’uric\u00a7l:eruL”Karnataka Civil
\nCourts Act  _reads  V’
\n“Sec\u00e9ti__\u00a7_1{g  of the District
\n,Co11rt’s_.”:’ .\u00b0{::l_l._  Dis.tri_ct Courts shall be
\n ‘Principal Civil Court of
\nolrigirial vvithin the local limitation
\n. .. of this juri.s’dic’:ion.\n<\/p>\n
 {2}  Suljjectio the provisions of the Code of<\/p>\n
  ..Cixril..iVl3rocedure 1908 [Central Act 5 of 1908).<\/p>\n
‘iAti’r’i’sdictio’n of a District Court shall
\nextend to all original suits and proceedings of<\/p>\n
”  ‘icivil nature.\n<\/p>\n
C   it vifould emerge that District Courts are deemed to be<\/p>\n
   _.v___\u00a7’Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction and as such<\/p>\n
4″\n<\/p>\n
20<\/span><\/p>\n
“Principal District Judge” of the District alone will
\nhave jurisdiction to decide the questions<\/p>\n
subject matter of a suit and no other Court.__;’_””‘* \u00ab f  C’ <\/p>\n
15. Thus, when these two:’Selct’ions,na\u00abrne’ly Section<\/p>\n
2[e) of Arbitration and Conciliation <\/p>\n
Section 14 of the Kamataka”‘Civi_l Courts read inil<\/p>\n
conjunction it would: ‘meanC”‘””_P”rinc\\ipa1 District Judge”
\nof that particular Distri’ct  Principal Civil<\/p>\n
Court of orig_;’ina;1r,ijurisdiction”within.tile local limits of its<\/p>\n
jurisdiction  vl3eiV}e1’*’1titled to decide the<\/p>\n
questijons  _the”~-\u00absubject matter of Arbitration.
\nHence,  einto”_.-vvords Principal Civil Court to<\/p>\n
 ‘and ilrieluclepithe Principal Civil Judge [Sr.Dn.]<\/p>\n
‘ _WOuic1be’o_tiose for two reasons:<\/p>\n
 ‘ –.  Unlike in section 2(0) of 1940. Act where
\nthe word “District” is used same does not<\/p>\n
find a place in 1996, Act.\n<\/p>\n
M<\/p>\n
21<\/span><\/p>\n
(b) While reading the exclusion clause in<\/p>\n
comparison of two enactments _xnam’ely<\/p>\n
1940, Act and 1996, Act the <\/p>\n
difference which is ‘to~-be found -is  in it<\/p>\n
1940 Act only thendiiiiotirtllvof <\/p>\n
were excludecl..\u00a7Ovl1ereas._  Act ”<\/p>\n
any  Pi’inc’ipal Civil
\nCourt   purpose of
\nThus,   ‘original jurisdiction in a
\nDistrict   only the Principal
\nDistrictqudge  and not the Principal Civil<\/p>\n
Judge _(Sr4.”D.n)’\u00bb~or  other Court having original<\/p>\n
 gurisdictiovtiiwhichis inferior in grade to such “Principal<\/p>\n
 ‘Civil  View of the same question No.2 has to<\/p>\n
be’\u00ab.he1_’d’ .against the appellant and in favour of the<\/p>\n
 ..respondent by holding execution petition filed before<\/p>\n
C “‘._l?’riricipal District Judge, Shimoga was rnaintainable and<\/p>\n
C V’ ” “it is to be held that order passed by the executing Court<\/p>\n
M<\/p>\n
in Ex.No.i’7\/2000 dated 16-12-2002 does not _suffer
\nfrom any in\ufb01rmity whatsoever and deser\\res’*V.f_o.2″i’.)f3<\/p>\n
affirmed.\n<\/p>\n
16. Rezguestion No.4. In ‘.giex%.’r of “discu\u00e9fsjo’13:s<\/p>\n
made herein above following order  oassedf\n<\/p>\n
(i) Appeai is }u1″efebyr   _<\/p>\n
{ii} Ord\u00e9\ufb01-2′ aessed  Vv.e2s\u00a7ecutin Court in<\/p>\n
dgx\ufb01m\u00e9oi?\/\u00e9ooo;dgui1i\u00a3a12~2o02 ksfmreby<\/p>\n
_kio’ofir1\u00a312ed.4V”‘~~._ _ –<\/p>\n
(iii]x’ 4.  ord__ei~   costs.\n<\/p>\n
‘ …..\n<\/p>\n
d\u00bb.sbb\/so?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court M\/S S M Suparies Nut Merchants vs The Karnataka Bank Ltd on 27 August, 2010 Author: Aravind Kumar IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF AUGUST BEFORE THE I-ION’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND u ‘V MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL 1\u00a5Io.:3’sA2i57 G3?’ 2\u00e9c3″(‘ir:~3.>.(‘:;%.T_j BETWEEN: M\/S. S.M. SUPARIES, NUT M.EI–“x’CHAN’I’S._ […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-20719","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM\/S S M Suparies Nut Merchants vs The Karnataka Bank Ltd on 27 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-s-m-suparies-nut-merchants-vs-the-karnataka-bank-ltd-on-27-august-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S S M Suparies Nut Merchants vs The Karnataka Bank Ltd on 27 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-s-m-suparies-nut-merchants-vs-the-karnataka-bank-ltd-on-27-august-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-08-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-06-24T04:02:08+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-s-m-suparies-nut-merchants-vs-the-karnataka-bank-ltd-on-27-august-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-s-m-suparies-nut-merchants-vs-the-karnataka-bank-ltd-on-27-august-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S S M Suparies Nut Merchants vs The Karnataka Bank Ltd on 27 August, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-24T04:02:08+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-s-m-suparies-nut-merchants-vs-the-karnataka-bank-ltd-on-27-august-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1821,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-s-m-suparies-nut-merchants-vs-the-karnataka-bank-ltd-on-27-august-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-s-m-suparies-nut-merchants-vs-the-karnataka-bank-ltd-on-27-august-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-s-m-suparies-nut-merchants-vs-the-karnataka-bank-ltd-on-27-august-2010\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S S M Suparies Nut Merchants vs The Karnataka Bank Ltd on 27 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-24T04:02:08+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-s-m-suparies-nut-merchants-vs-the-karnataka-bank-ltd-on-27-august-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-s-m-suparies-nut-merchants-vs-the-karnataka-bank-ltd-on-27-august-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-s-m-suparies-nut-merchants-vs-the-karnataka-bank-ltd-on-27-august-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\\\/S S M Suparies Nut Merchants vs The Karnataka Bank Ltd on 27 August, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"M\/S S M Suparies Nut Merchants vs The Karnataka Bank Ltd on 27 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-s-m-suparies-nut-merchants-vs-the-karnataka-bank-ltd-on-27-august-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S S M Suparies Nut Merchants vs The Karnataka Bank Ltd on 27 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-s-m-suparies-nut-merchants-vs-the-karnataka-bank-ltd-on-27-august-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-08-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-06-24T04:02:08+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-s-m-suparies-nut-merchants-vs-the-karnataka-bank-ltd-on-27-august-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-s-m-suparies-nut-merchants-vs-the-karnataka-bank-ltd-on-27-august-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S S M Suparies Nut Merchants vs The Karnataka Bank Ltd on 27 August, 2010","datePublished":"2010-08-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-24T04:02:08+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-s-m-suparies-nut-merchants-vs-the-karnataka-bank-ltd-on-27-august-2010"},"wordCount":1821,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-s-m-suparies-nut-merchants-vs-the-karnataka-bank-ltd-on-27-august-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-s-m-suparies-nut-merchants-vs-the-karnataka-bank-ltd-on-27-august-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-s-m-suparies-nut-merchants-vs-the-karnataka-bank-ltd-on-27-august-2010","name":"M\/S S M Suparies Nut Merchants vs The Karnataka Bank Ltd on 27 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-08-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-24T04:02:08+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-s-m-suparies-nut-merchants-vs-the-karnataka-bank-ltd-on-27-august-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-s-m-suparies-nut-merchants-vs-the-karnataka-bank-ltd-on-27-august-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-s-m-suparies-nut-merchants-vs-the-karnataka-bank-ltd-on-27-august-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S S M Suparies Nut Merchants vs The Karnataka Bank Ltd on 27 August, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20719","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=20719"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20719\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=20719"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=20719"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=20719"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}