{"id":228131,"date":"2009-11-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-11-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-jagadish-so-lt-chandrappa-vs-karnataka-state-finance-on-13-november-2009"},"modified":"2016-01-18T17:28:42","modified_gmt":"2016-01-18T11:58:42","slug":"c-jagadish-so-lt-chandrappa-vs-karnataka-state-finance-on-13-november-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-jagadish-so-lt-chandrappa-vs-karnataka-state-finance-on-13-november-2009","title":{"rendered":"C Jagadish S\/O Lt Chandrappa vs Karnataka State Finance … on 13 November, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
C Jagadish S\/O Lt Chandrappa vs Karnataka State Finance … on 13 November, 2009<\/div>\n
Author: D.V.Shylendra Kumar<\/div>\n
 \n\n \n\n(R)\n\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF  \nAT BANGALORE    j_     \nDated this the 13\"? day Q\u00a3ANe\\4rem-bet'   \nBEFORIE:  I  I   I _ _ .\nTHE HON'BLE MR JUs'm;_1s: DOV  \"\nWrit Petition No. 291%? 2902; \nBETWEEN    A  \n\n1. C JAGADISH   \ns\/0 LATE _   -  '\n  for Petitioner;\n__  \"K_ Ra11};1eI:a11cIra1\"1,\u00ab ..A;I\\_r  as Amieus Curiae]\n\nAND \n\n1 . KAR;_\\iA:m1{A. SI'l\"A'I'EI \n AN'D\"OTI-IERS  RESPONDENTS\nI I 'IE';-3r,_MI\/s. Rudragowda, Gururaj Joshi\nand Anitha. Advs. for R1 & R2;\nSri B M Siddappa, Adv. for R3]\n\n ._  IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND\n\n227 OF '~CONS'l'ITUTiON OF INDIA PRAYING TU QUASH THE\n\n_ LEGAL JNOTEICE DT. 22\/27-02-2002 ISSUED BY THE 13'?\n 4 we RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER AS PER ANN EXURE-E AND\n\nI   PETITION IS COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS,\n\n'   DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:\n\n\n\n3.\u00bb. ,4'\n\nDVSKJ: W.P.NO.29182\/2002\n\n13.1 1.2009\nORDER\n<\/pre>\n
This is a story of the suffering of
\nborrowers from the KSFC who .particnIarigf’;V  dd”
\nthey are belonging to the lowerzstrata of<\/p>\n
and reveals as to what.rc4’p””~~3{indV’ of –..phvar’aVssment, ”<\/p>\n
humiliation and disas_tro1its'”f’1n:anei_a1 consequences
\nare heaped on them, are a}.–17’Ve:’_3(_ttV1ie}1′ ‘demonstrated<\/p>\n
in the present “E’?.’~”1 p\u20ac:tit.ie&:.  at d<\/p>\n
2: A__ pers’on_v”whor,_ha_d- a driving licence with the<\/p>\n
fond hope’ * of transport vehicle, had<\/p>\n
 bor.r\u00a7\ufb01fedV a” of Rs.5.66 laiihs from the<\/p>\n
 ‘res’por1dent\u00a7:C’corporation on 20.12.1996 under the<\/p>\n
 scheme mooted by the<\/p>\n
  V’-.Corpo’1″_ation.\n<\/p>\n
‘    The petitioner-borrower had made an initial<\/p>\n
T  “investment of Rs.2,34,000\/- for the purchase of<\/p>\n
‘1
\n1<\/span>
\nQ<\/p>\n
(41 <\/p>\n
2<\/span><\/p>\n
chassis of Ashok Leyland Lorry and the balanee was
\nfunded by the Corporation by funding
\nself–en:1ployment scheme and it is the
\npetitioner that the petitioner”
\nexpenditure of Rs.1,53,0002;;__
\nbody on the chassis and   for’
\ntransport operatioyi 1.  of the
\nVehicle.  if 0 if 0 if if if<\/p>\n
4. It_   was unable to
\n of the loan as
\nper the  had defaulted in making<\/p>\n
payment’ a. fewl’in’st;alments, which gave cause for<\/p>\n
 the’}’\u00ab:.Corporati’on. ….. to re–possess the vehicle and<\/p>\n
  i1l:ti’:navteiy}’~ Vehicle itself was sold on 09.04.2001<\/p>\n
forga  ‘of Rs.2.80 lakh after going through a<\/p>\n
 farcela procedure for notifying the public at large<\/p>\n
   the Vehicle in an open competition\/ auction.<\/p>\n
  -~-Tlhis is the allegation of the petitioner against the<\/p>\n
a\/<\/p>\n
respondent Financial Corporation as an
\nadvertisement on 15.02.2001 about the sale of such
\nseized vehicles was carried out in a non~vde:seript
\nvernacular newspaper by the name  _
\npublished at Chitradurga, the pplace oft
\nand the mainstay of which newspa\u00e9per
\nonly such advertiseinvents    the-0′
\nCorporation. 0<\/p>\n
5. The   even after<\/p>\n
adjustin’g”Atlf1ve  the Vehicle, which<\/p>\n
according  had been undersold. as<\/p>\n
thegversioln  the ‘petitioner is that the Vehicle was<\/p>\n
.  less  Rs.6 lakh on that day, even as<\/p>\n
  by the Insurance agency, the<\/p>\n
 loan having not been cleared, the<\/p>\n
it  Corporation took steps to realize the balance, which<\/p>\n
5<\/span><\/p>\n
4<\/span><\/p>\n
according to the Corporation was a sum of<\/p>\n
Rs.2,36,:’543\/~ as on 09.04.2001.<\/p>\n
6. With the only source of
\nwith the petitioner and
\nperson, having been lost; “eras
\npetitioner generating any 0′  the
\nbalance instalments’..V:\u00e9’and.__  while the
\narnount reniained  according
\nto the   merrily went
\n already bruised borrower
\nwith interest,’  penal interest and<\/p>\n
wh.-fa.’i;’v not interest  swelled the amount to a sum<\/p>\n
  on 30.04.2002 and recovery<\/p>\n
 ~pi:oceedi’ngsg’v{rere resorted to by the Corporation for<\/p>\n
reaiizaiion of this amount by enforcing the surety<\/p>\n
 itaki.ng recourse to enforcement of the amount on<\/p>\n
the surety and it is at this stage, the petitioner has<\/p>\n
Q<\/p>\n
5<\/span><\/p>\n
approached this Court by filing the above
\nW.P.No.29}_82\/2002 contending inter alia that the
\nrespondent–~Corporation has taken the petition:eI’.for<\/p>\n
a ride; that though the petitioner had
\ntotal sum of Rs.6,91,’7i9\/– ”
\nVehicle as sold by the Corpora’tion_”for <\/p>\n
), the Corporation  any<\/p>\n
unreasonable dem.and\u00bb='”” = ‘*2. _ pp repayment of<\/p>\n
Rs.5,83,835\/– and i it therefore, for the<\/p>\n
fouowmg    <\/p>\n
1. issue “ceItioI9ari by quashing the legal
\nn(mi\u00a2ei dated.iA22f2’7}o2.2oo2 issued by the first<\/p>\n
 respondent tolthie second petitioner\/ surety;<\/p>\n
  Issu”e._ a  in the nature of mandamus<\/p>\n
   the second respondent to consider
\n petitioners representation dated
\n ..2’V?,.OZl.2002 by the Waving simple and penal<\/p>\n
overdue interest at the rate of 22.5% and 30%<\/p>\n
 respectively p.m.;\n<\/p>\n
7,.\n<\/p>\n
3. issue writ in the nature of declaration,
\ndeclaring the sale of the vehicle Ashok Leyl,and
\nTruck bearing No.KA-166825
\nrespondent in favour of the third
\nillegal and void;       it t<\/p>\n
4. And pass such other ord’ers:1’of:<\/p>\n
7. This writ petition   the’
\nCorporation on   amongst
\nwhich is thgiiggi  nature is not
\ntenable    under Articles
\n226   of India, even in
\ntermlsolf  by the Hon’ble Supreme<\/p>\n
Court as”pe’r .th.eljud~grnent in the case of GUJARAT<\/p>\n
 –  _ rFi3\\iANc1;AL  l””C’ORPORATlON vs. LOTUS<\/p>\n
  etc. (AIR 1983 so 848).\n<\/p>\n
 Writ petition is taken up for scrutiny and<\/p>\n
  received consideration at the hands of this<\/p>\n
id  ~. _.;\u00a7Court for quite sometime, mainly for the reason that<\/p>\n
7<\/span><\/p>\n
when once the Corporation has taken over the asset
\nof the borrower which was an income producing
\nasset and by working it the borrower
\nrepaid the amount and in fact, because
\nselling it in a so-called  iv
\naccording to the petitionier isllaglxain
\nunder-sale only resulting’  borrower,
\nWhether the Corpol\u00a3atiopn%.:_\u00bb’A  it after that
\ncontinue to4_:’rnulct”‘  interest,
\ncompound   etc., on the
\npre1nise–.  is not realized even after<\/p>\n
sale of .re~posses.sed asset and it is such an<\/p>\n
  of Rs;2.,..3.6’,543\/– said to be due as on that<\/p>\n
  has now swollen to a sum of<\/p>\n
 said to be the amount outstanding<\/p>\n
 as on.V_.l’l3O.09.2OO9 as per a memo placed before this<\/p>\n
  today by the Corporation.\n<\/p>\n
C 3
\n8<\/span><\/p>\n
9. This is as per the intimation issued by the
\nCorporation in the context of a suggestion
\nthe Court, when the Corporation
\nthere are certain governmer1_ta1.__sch.e’rnes’.’;V
\navailable, for extending V
\nborrowers and as per 1
\nplaced along with  which
\nis placed before   to which is<\/p>\n
rrirriunicated by the<\/p>\n
attached  sheet  “c<\/p>\n
Corporation:-\u00ablwionan  to the<\/p>\n
borroyver,  borrower that he should pay<\/p>\n
a sum  along with a VAT liability of<\/p>\n
 ._ :’Co’rporation, While is inclined to close the<\/p>\n
loan  of the petitioner as fully paid, if the<\/p>\n
2 \u00bb ipetitioner should pay the amount now, would at the<\/p>\n
‘same time seek further instructions from the<\/p>\n
[0
\n9<\/span>
\nborrower as to the manner in which a sum of
\nRs.1.29 lakh which is- due to the borro4WVeii:’_:”and
\nwhich is in deposit in an account
\naccount in the very Banlg: can
\nproceeds paid or otherwise
\nCoflloration will take   lave
\netc. This communic4ation;;h’it  followed
\nby a further   that action
\nin    persuaded for
\nrecoveryo.f0V0,25,739.82\/*~, if the
\nb01.1.\u20ac}vWe1._00  -0 comply with the<\/p>\n
possibillity\/pajnnlent\u00bb:’:_”..* has indicated in this<\/p>\n
 n  coIi3..n1\u00a7.inicat:ionV.. ….. _. e<\/p>\n
 copies of the memo and<\/p>\n
coriinitinications is attached a Government<\/p>\n
  ip’r’oceedings of the Government of Karnataka in<\/p>\n
‘V’No’.0AE:56:GFC 2009, Bangalore, dated 26.09.2009,<\/p>\n
ll<\/p>\n
10<\/span><\/p>\n
extending concession in the matter of rate of
\ninterest to borrowers falling in different ca._te_\u00e9oi’.ies
\nsuch as those who have borrowed
\nin (249) Category, in between
\nEr? category and between:lanidV <\/p>\n
Q category etc.<\/p>\n
12. The  available to a
\nborrower in terms    out by
\nthe corp:oiettiorili3c;ii   the petitioner-
\n  being a borrower
\nof a   Rs.5 lakh and Rs.lO<\/p>\n
lal<;l'1."\n<\/p>\n
  _ 11.1.3.:.4Mr.’Ramachandra, learned Amicus Curiae,<\/p>\n
 ‘tor the petitioner–borroWer, points out<\/p>\n
 no that the classification of the petitioner as 9hLcategory<\/p>\n
it  tlalso wrong; that even as admittedly if the<\/p>\n
l V’ “borrowed amount which was the outstanding<\/p>\n
l\u00e9l<\/p>\n
I l<\/p>\n
amount based on which further calculation was
\nmade was Rs.2,36,543\/~ as on 9.4.2001,p–“‘~.after
\nselling away the re~possessed
\nborrower and this is shown as
\namount on the date of sale
\nthe purpose of this notifi’ca_tion’*of’ the
\nthis amount of  taken<\/p>\n
to be the initial  borrower fitted
\ninto(g%\/\ufb02’.:l’.\\4l) categojiy   the rate of<\/p>\n
interest to   borrowing should be<\/p>\n
exteridecj’ in   this’ cornputation\/ premise.<\/p>\n
4:. .,  learned Counsel appearing
\n   theWCAorporation along with Ms.Anitha.
\n  that the categorization is not based
\n0:1” theasubsequent outstanding , but on the original
\n  etc., I am of the opinion that for the present<\/p>\n
purpose, it can definitely be taken to be the amount<\/p>\n
12 <\/span><\/p>\n
outstanding, starting with the year 200}, as the
\nCorporation had already worked out its remedies by<\/p>\n
then, and it is on the outstanding amount of<\/p>\n
Rs.2,36,543\/\u00bb, the present <\/p>\n
Rs.6o,25,739.s2 has been worked up.rrrj!l_  ‘<\/p>\n
15. Smt.Anitha, Counsel Zinplaces<\/p>\n
court a memo dated 13. 1″\n<\/p>\n
are 8152<\/p>\n
1. A letterj-was  petitioner on<\/p>\n
 2:1;e1o.2o09,f~.._’
\n2; In pursrijanc–e_ll”of~*’the order passed by this
\nHonivble. Co’urt;e, details are furnished to
\n_ the e.petitioner, and also informed to avail
\n  the b’e\\n_e_fit of Government order. The
\n :’p]iab._ility is Rs.60,25,74.-0\/~ as on
\n_ ‘-._lo’7.rry11.2009. Awaiting the bene\ufb01t of the
\n \u00abllfrovgernment order, petitioner required to
\nV.  Rs.5.55 lakhs and VAT Rs.69,375\/~~.
\n.  The amount of Rs.1.29 lakhs paid by
\n1’ petitioner is kept in A R P A and that
\namount would be deducted from Rs.5.5
\nlakhs. Petitioner also served along with
\ncopy of letters and order.\n<\/p>\n
Copy of Government order.\n<\/p>\n
13 <\/span><\/p>\n
16. While this is an option open tosgthe
\nCorporation to work out on such
\nindicate to the petitioner as to
\namount that has to be paid’
\ntaking advantage of  and
\nsettlement of they   by
\nMs.Anitha, learned? for the
\nCorporatio3\u00a7;;..t;here  as to Why
\nthe Corp’oV1’atio’ii”:V’ii_s:  adding VAT liability
\nof   on a scaled down
\namodnt: V on the borrowing in terms<\/p>\n
of 4;L’he_ s\u00a2heme,  levy of tax under the VAT is<\/p>\n
  anly olnmsale of goods and by no stretch of<\/p>\n
 ._iina;gi11a\u00a7i_on””or wisdom one can understand the<\/p>\n
logio  jtistification for treating a borrowing from a<\/p>\n
2  ifinanolial institution or any loan facility extended by<\/p>\n
IS”\n<\/p>\n
“I 4<\/p>\n
‘ the Bank to a borrower, to be in the nature of sale<\/p>\n
of any goods.\n<\/p>\n
17. Be that as it may, even it is
\nthe Counsel that their
\nto their counselling
\nresponsible Officer of  to be
\npresent come    Hlerrplain the
\nrationale of the”  the habit of
\nheaping pa   borrowers.\n<\/p>\n
 4′ “the” irrational approach and<\/p>\n
aCtiQnSVVV”Q1:’i  the Financial Corporation,<\/p>\n
  wh’at;_sho_cks one7.s\u00ab’conscience and sensitivity is, and<\/p>\n
     taken aback, that a small time<\/p>\n
 is selfmemployed and who has sought<\/p>\n
 ii for some financial assistance from the Corporation<\/p>\n
A’  who has already been heaped with misery and<\/p>\n
C V “harassment by re–possessing and selling away of<\/p>\n
IL\u00bb<\/p>\n
1.5<\/p>\n
the vehicle for the purchase of which the
\nCorporation had financed, the Corpora’tionL:’._V_is
\ncoming up with the version that E ‘
\nRs.2,36,5-43\/– outstanding C”
\nswollen to
\nborroWer\/ petitioner is   ‘pay ad”
\ntotal sum of Rs.60,2:”:’:x.,_7 due
\nin terms of the  and that an
\namount of “‘o–utstanding as on
\n interim orders
\npassed in and matter pending
\nbefore this  $2002 and Corporation now
\n   up \\i\\fit1i…a._.v”ersion, which is, to say the least,
\n    :.Corporation has shown such temerity and
\nplace before this Court that an amount
\n of’ Rxs…A2,36,543\/~ outstanding as on 9.4.2001 can
\n  to a staggering amount of Rs.60,25,739.82\/-<\/p>\n
C it ” “Within eight years or so.<\/p>\n
Ft<\/p>\n
‘1 6<\/p>\n
19. If such is the rate of interest the
\nCorporation is charging on its borrowers, X dognot
\nthink any borrower carrying on any
\nactivity on any legitimate lines can  _
\nwith interest rates of this
\nmost of the borroWers\u00bb’o.f__
\ndefaulting and many of  xyhen the
\nCorporation resorts    proceedings<\/p>\n
using its statutory  <\/p>\n
  _   p\ufb01iposed of” oomputing the amount
\npayabAIe__ by  for the Corporation to<\/p>\n
close” the  ‘acco’unt as fully paid \/ satisfied by the<\/p>\n
 ‘hor1*o1i&ierV;4A”\u00ab-the Corporation is further directed to<\/p>\n
 ‘dedu”ot’a”theV’.;;.Si.im of Rs.4,00,000\/– deposited by the<\/p>\n
petitioners. with the Corporation as per the interim<\/p>\n
A  order passed by this court on 30.8.2002, and by<\/p>\n
C\u00e9deducting this amount from the outstanding<\/p>\n
V3<\/p>\n
balance of Rs.2,36,5-4-3\/~ as on 5.4.2001 and<\/p>\n
17<\/span><\/p>\n
treating the outstanding capital amount
\ndate of deposit of this one Iakh to be Rs;
\nand compute interest on this .arnotunt,”‘: <\/p>\n
even in terms of the scheme refer’;_ed to”a1f>oVe. ”  <\/p>\n
21. This apart: it is  from
\nthe Corporation  amounts
\nwere outsta\ufb02djm-Q   the overall,
\nas on  and as to the
\n  has realised such
\noutstar1ding  this date which amount<\/p>\n
was due to the ‘Corporation till now and if any such<\/p>\n
C ‘aiinoigrit Wi1iCh was an amount due on this day has<\/p>\n
   fzrepaid till today, as to how such<\/p>\n
outstandyi\u00e9ng amount has worked out in the present<\/p>\n
A 57  and the Corporation is directed to furnish such<\/p>\n
  ‘factual information before this Court for<\/p>\n
{<7
\n18<\/span><\/p>\n
appreciating the manner in which the Corporation
\nis functioning and as to Whether the Corporatio_11._pVis
\nadopting a uniform and fair method
\ntransactions, as to Whether I-arfair” “ll
\ntreatment is meted out
\nparticularly the Corporation:”being’*   the!’
\nmeaning of Article’    to explain
\nits conduct and  when the
\nquery is,   :su.e’h”””i’questions. The
\nCorpQratiAon::”i1\u00a7s: to place before this
\nCourt\u00bby’tl’ie  \/ outstanding amounts<\/p>\n
Which,   off as bad debts and as<\/p>\n
  i:r,\ufb01eeoy.ei’ableA’ during the past eight years, i.e.<\/p>\n
    1.<\/p>\n
 , 2e2..’$(3orporation to place all these materials<\/p>\n
A  iblefore this Court within a reasonable time and<\/p>\n
.   though Ms.Anitha, learned Counsel would seek for<\/p>\n
QB
\nl9<\/p>\n
two to four weeks, they are given six weeks time
\nfrom today to place all that material
\napprise the petitioner, in the meanWhile3_..l’_:as’:
\nprecise amount has to be paid.
\nthe loan amount for OTS is  on
\nthat the borrower falls  “riot
\ncategory, and by  of: interest
\nwaiver\/ concession   ‘AA–l.:\u00e9z(__3l.l-n1eII1\u20ac3 of the
\nGovernmen_tlai.rd  in this order.
\nIt is   ayail this facility and
\nto clear’–   Without prejudice to his<\/p>\n
contentionlsvrin   petition and without waiting<\/p>\n
 fo\ufb01arry perrrlission or orders by this court on this<\/p>\n
   lthiepfmatter.\n<\/p>\n
 ..  a copy of this order to the learned<\/p>\n
A  x_Clot_1nse1 for the Corporation and the Registry is<\/p>\n
 gciirected to forward copies of this order to the<\/p>\n
ax
\n20<\/span><\/p>\n
Managing Director, Karnataka State Financial
\nCorporation and to the Principal Secretary..VVto_:’ithe
\nGovernment of Karnataka, Finance   <\/p>\n
also the Chief Secretary.\n<\/p>\n
24. This Court may  to
\ndesirability of  it  State
\nGovernment the  Corporation
\nitself, if the its borrowers
\nfor a   borrowers with
\n  on the borrowings,
\nresu1lii1’1:g” ill  harassment to small time<\/p>\n
borrowers’;   off loans availed by big<\/p>\n
,’ ‘borro”w*ers”..by treating their loans as irrecoverable,<\/p>\n
 xsti_cl:1’~,”actions and management rather<\/p>\n
milsrnanagement of the affairs of the Corporation is<\/p>\n
 x_dlefi,nitely detrimental to the larger public interest<\/p>\n
l\u00e9and particularly as the Corporation is funded and<\/p>\n
V. ..\n<\/p>\n
&\u00a7\\<\/p>\n
started with an initial investment by public funds<\/p>\n
-‘:5\/’ 21<\/p>\n
drawn from the State Exchequer.<\/p>\n
Registry to furnish copies of this ordier  <\/p>\n
cost to the Amicus Curiae.\u00bb~~aappearin\u00a7:’.jV “‘<\/p>\n
petitioner, to the learned  <\/p>\n
Corporation and also to for\u00a7V’ard ha ‘cop.yj’veaeh”to: the”<\/p>\n
Principal Secreta1jf’;~..\u00e9_  of” “Finance,
\nGovernment of  :jChief Secretary
\nto  ” forthwith for their
\n tievelopments in the
\nmanagement of7\u00a7 5t:\u00a7_.\u00a7’e  Corporations
\nand also for    remedial
\nn1eas1_;re._s_  farti”ier___.oorders by this court.<\/p>\n
Sd\/~
\nJUDGE<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court C Jagadish S\/O Lt Chandrappa vs Karnataka State Finance … on 13 November, 2009 Author: D.V.Shylendra Kumar (R) IN THE HIGH COURT OF AT BANGALORE j_ Dated this the 13″? day Q\u00a3ANe\\4rem-bet’ BEFORIE: I I I _ _ . THE HON’BLE MR JUs’m;_1s: DOV ” Writ Petition No. 291%? 2902; BETWEEN A […]<\/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-228131","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nC Jagadish S\/O Lt Chandrappa vs Karnataka State Finance ... on 13 November, 2009 - 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\/c-jagadish-so-lt-chandrappa-vs-karnataka-state-finance-on-13-november-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"C Jagadish S\/O Lt Chandrappa vs Karnataka State Finance ... on 13 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-jagadish-so-lt-chandrappa-vs-karnataka-state-finance-on-13-november-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-11-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-01-18T11:58:42+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=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-jagadish-so-lt-chandrappa-vs-karnataka-state-finance-on-13-november-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-jagadish-so-lt-chandrappa-vs-karnataka-state-finance-on-13-november-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"C Jagadish S\\\/O Lt Chandrappa vs Karnataka State Finance … on 13 November, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-18T11:58:42+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-jagadish-so-lt-chandrappa-vs-karnataka-state-finance-on-13-november-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2414,\"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\\\/c-jagadish-so-lt-chandrappa-vs-karnataka-state-finance-on-13-november-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-jagadish-so-lt-chandrappa-vs-karnataka-state-finance-on-13-november-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-jagadish-so-lt-chandrappa-vs-karnataka-state-finance-on-13-november-2009\",\"name\":\"C Jagadish S\\\/O Lt Chandrappa vs Karnataka State Finance ... on 13 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-18T11:58:42+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-jagadish-so-lt-chandrappa-vs-karnataka-state-finance-on-13-november-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-jagadish-so-lt-chandrappa-vs-karnataka-state-finance-on-13-november-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-jagadish-so-lt-chandrappa-vs-karnataka-state-finance-on-13-november-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"C Jagadish S\\\/O Lt Chandrappa vs Karnataka State Finance … on 13 November, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"C Jagadish S\/O Lt Chandrappa vs Karnataka State Finance ... on 13 November, 2009 - 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\/c-jagadish-so-lt-chandrappa-vs-karnataka-state-finance-on-13-november-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"C Jagadish S\/O Lt Chandrappa vs Karnataka State Finance ... on 13 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-jagadish-so-lt-chandrappa-vs-karnataka-state-finance-on-13-november-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-11-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-01-18T11:58:42+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-jagadish-so-lt-chandrappa-vs-karnataka-state-finance-on-13-november-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-jagadish-so-lt-chandrappa-vs-karnataka-state-finance-on-13-november-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"C Jagadish S\/O Lt Chandrappa vs Karnataka State Finance … on 13 November, 2009","datePublished":"2009-11-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-18T11:58:42+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-jagadish-so-lt-chandrappa-vs-karnataka-state-finance-on-13-november-2009"},"wordCount":2414,"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\/c-jagadish-so-lt-chandrappa-vs-karnataka-state-finance-on-13-november-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-jagadish-so-lt-chandrappa-vs-karnataka-state-finance-on-13-november-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-jagadish-so-lt-chandrappa-vs-karnataka-state-finance-on-13-november-2009","name":"C Jagadish S\/O Lt Chandrappa vs Karnataka State Finance ... on 13 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-11-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-18T11:58:42+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-jagadish-so-lt-chandrappa-vs-karnataka-state-finance-on-13-november-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-jagadish-so-lt-chandrappa-vs-karnataka-state-finance-on-13-november-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-jagadish-so-lt-chandrappa-vs-karnataka-state-finance-on-13-november-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"C Jagadish S\/O Lt Chandrappa vs Karnataka State Finance … on 13 November, 2009"}]},{"@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\/228131","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=228131"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/228131\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=228131"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=228131"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=228131"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}