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 W.P.No.17397/2018 (CS-RES) BETWEEN:
Sri G.Parameshwarappa, S/o late Sri Gangappa, Since deceased by his LRs.
1. Smt. Renukamma, W/o late Sri G.Parameshwarappa, Aged about 60 years.
2. Miss Smitha, D/o late Sri G.Parameshwarappa, Aged about 32 years.
3. Sri Pradeep, S/o late Sri G.Parameshwarappa, Aged about 30 years.
All are R/o Sanjana Nilaya, 2nd Main Road, 8th Cross, Krushinagar, Shimoga – 577 201. … PETITIONERS (By Sri G.B.Nandish Gowda, Adv.) AND:
1. The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Society (NI-441), Karnataka State Souharda Samyuktha Sahakari Niyamitha, No.246, Between 17th & 18th Cross, Margosa Road, Malleshwaram, Bengaluru – 560 055.
2. The Chief Executive Officer, The Pavagada Multipurpose Co-operative Limited, No.23, 1st Floor, Rajanna Complex, Ramamandira Cross, Jayanagara, Shimoga City – 577 201.
3. Sri P.Vasudeva, S/o Sri P.Pachappa, Aged about 39 years, R/at “Sonu”, No.7/406, 4th Cross, Basavanagudi, Seshadripuram, Shimoga – 577 201. … RESPONDENTS (By Sri A.K.Vasanth, AGA for R-1;
Sri M.Jai Prakash Reddy, Adv. for R-2; Service held sufficient for R-3) This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the award dated 21.03.2017 passed by R-1 vide Annexure-E and also the order dated 09.04.2018 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.180/2017 vide Annexure-G.
This petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER 1. The petitioners herein are the legal heirs of the original borrower – G.Parameshwarappa, who had borrowed a sum of Rs.One Crore from respondent No.2 – The Pavagada Souharda Multipurpose Co-operative Limited. It is seen that the original borrower committed default in repayment of loan. Hence, dispute was raised under Section 39 of the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997 (for short, ‘the Act’). In the said proceedings, though sufficient opportunity was given, the petitioners herein were not able to demonstrate that the entire loan is repaid by them. In that view of the matter, the proceedings initiated under Section 39 of the Act came to be allowed awarding a sum of Rs.1,12,65,436/- towards the outstanding loan and interest and another sum of Rs.2,195/- towards cost of litigation and the same was directed to paid with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have filed this writ petition.
2. This matter had come up on 26.04.2018 for consideration of interim prayer. On the said date, a conditional order was passed staying the auction sale of the property which was provided as security to the aforesaid loan, subject to condition that a sum of Rs.25 lakhs should be deposited before this Court within six weeks from 26.04.2018.
3. Learned Counsel for respondent No.2 would submit that the said amount of Rs.25 lakhs was not deposited, and therefore, after completion of six weeks from 26.04.2018, the property which was provided as security by the original borrower was put to auction and the same was sold for valuable consideration of Rs.1,26,50,000/-. It is further submitted that out of the auction amount, after adjusting the outstanding dues along with interest, etc., the balance amount of Rs.9,50,000/- has been deposited to the account of the petitioners. Learned Counsel further submits that the property which was the subject matter of attachment was not in possession of the petitioners and the same was in possession and occupation of the tenants and that after the tenants vacated the property, the purchaser has taken possession of the said property, and therefore, nothing survives for consideration in this writ petition.
4. On going through the order impugned and as well as the interim order dated 26.04.2018, it is clear that in the proceedings before the Assistant Registrar, petitioners have not made out any case to deny their liability to the amount claimed in the said proceedings. Further, in this writ petition, though an opportunity was given to the petitioners to show their bona fides by depositing a sum of Rs.25 lakhs while granting an interim order on 26.04.2018, they have failed to do so. In that view of the matter, this Court finds that the subsequent sale of the property by respondent no.2 which has taken place on 09.08.2018 long after the expiry of six weeks time from 26.04.2018, appears to be just and proper. No grounds are made out to interfere with the same. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE KK