IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO.40318/2016(CS-RES) BETWEEN MR SEETHARAMA ACHARYA S/O MR. SUBBAIAH ACHARYA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, ASST. TEACHER, GOVT. COMPOSITE HIGH SCHOOL, BAJATHUR, PUTTUR TALUK-574201 DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT ... PETITIONER (BY SRI VIKAS KRISHNA.K FOR SRI SACHIN B S, ADVOCATES) AND 1. THE GENERAL MANAGER TEACHERS CO-OPERATIVE BANK HEAD OFFICE, BALIGA TOWERS, 4TH FLOOR, NEAR SERVICE BUS STAND, UDUPI-576101 2. JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ARBITRATION, K.S.C.U. BANKS FEDERATION, NO.132, K.H.ROAD, BANGALORE-560 027 3. MR. MAMACHAN S SINCE DECEASED BY LRS 3(a) TERESSA W/O MAMACHAN AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, 3(b). ROSHAN S/O MAMACHAN AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, 3(c). RENITA D/O MAMACHAN AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, 3(d) REVITA D/O MAMACHAN AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT KUMPALA SOMESHWARA, MANGALORE TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA-575 001 4. ASST. REGISTRAR AND RECOVERY OFFICER KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK BANGALORE-560027 5. PUBLIC EDUCATION DEPT. PUTTUR TALUK REPRESENTED BY BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER, PUTTUR, D.K-575001 6. SMT. CHANDRALEKHA M AGE MAJOR, TEACHER DAKSHINA KANNADA ZILLA PARISHATH PRIMARY SCHOOL ALANKAR, PUTTUR TALUK D.K.DISTRICT-575001 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.PREMA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI VITTAL SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI A.K.VASANTH, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R5, R6 SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 27.11.2015 IN APPEAL NO.63/2008 VIDE ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPEAL NO.63/2008 AS PRAYED FOR AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER This writ petition is filed by the appellant in Appeal No.63/2008 on the file of Karnataka Appellate Tribunal at Bengaluru, impugning the order dated 27.11.2015 passed in said proceedings, vide Annexure-A.
2. Brief facts leading to this writ petition are as under: Petitioner herein is a guarantor to the loan which was borrowed by 3rd respondent from 1st respondent - society. It is stated that besides the petitioner, 6th respondent namely, M.Chandralekha was also a guarantor to said loan transaction. It is further stated that since there was default in payment of loan amount by 3rd respondent, 1st respondent - society filed a dispute against 3rd respondent, which came to be allowed and an award is passed against him as borrower and the petitioner and 6th respondent herein as guarantors to the loan transaction. It is seen that said award was not challenged by the principal borrower – Mamachan during his lifetime. However, it is the petitioner who is one of the guarantors to the loan transaction challenged the same in an appeal filed by him before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’ for short), which came to be dismissed by order dated 27.11.2015. Against the concurrent finding of both the courts below this writ petition is filed.
3. The record would indicate that even before this writ petition could be filed, the original borrower – Mamachan has died, hence, in his place his legal representatives are brought on record. It is stated that all of them are residing abroad and notice sent to them has come back with an endorsement un-served. At this juncture, when the petitioner is required to take steps for issue of notice to them, he would plead his inability to take out notice to them on the ground that they are not residing in India. In this background, question of pursuing this writ petition against them does not arise. In the meanwhile, it is seen that the interim order granted earlier in this writ petition was only for a period of three months from 4.8.2016 and has expired after the completion of said three months, which is not extended till today.
4. Accordingly, when this matter is taken up for final disposal in the presence of learned counsel for the petitioner as well as 1st respondent, it is clearly seen that the loan transaction between 1st respondent and 3rd respondent is established. It is also seen that the said loan transaction was supported by the guarantee of petitioner and 6th respondent herein. In that view of the matter, when in a dispute raised by the 1st respondent, the liability of 3rd respondent, petitioner and 6th respondent herein being accepted by the competent authority jointly and severally for the amount due to the 1st respondent - bank and which is upheld by the Tribunal in an appeal, this Court find that no grounds are made out to interfere with the said orders.
Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE nd/-