IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.8132 OF 2019 (GM-CFA) BETWEEN:
SRI H R NATARAJA SHASTHRY AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS S/O H.BALAKRISHNA SHASTRY, LAVANYA ENTERPRISES, 1ST FLOOR, LAVANYA COMPLEX, TEMPO STAND CIRCLE, SHIVAMOGGA PIN-577201.
(By Mr. H MALATESH, ADV.) AND:
1 M/S MARGADHARSHI CHITS PVT LTD D.NO.34/1, 1ST FLOOR, K.S.V COMPLEX, NEHARAU ROAD, SHIVAMOGGA 577201, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN/MANAGER.
2. SMT MEENAKSHI W/O N.VENKATESH, JUNIOR HEALTH ASSISTANT, GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL, CHANNAGIRI DAVANAGERE DISTRICT PIN:577213.
3. SMT B R MANJULA W/O.K.MANOJ MYANUAL, STAFF NURSE, GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL, CHANNAGIRI DAVANAGERE DISTRICT PIN:577213.
… PETITIONER 4. SRI T R GANGAPPA S/O SIDDHAPPA, D’ GROUP EMPLOY GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL, CHANNAGIRI, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT, PIN 577213.
5. SRI N VENKATESH S/O R.T.NAGAPPA, GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL, CHANANGIRI, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT PIN:577213.
- - -
… RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED DATED 09.01.2019 IN EX-CASE NO.67/11 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-G PASSED BY THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & CJM, SHIVAMOGGA AND QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN EX-CASE NO.67/2011, PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & CJM, SHIVAMOGGA AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Sri.H.Malatesh, learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. In this petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 09.01.2019 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shivamogga under the Chit Funds Act, 1982.
3. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a guarantor and the executive proceedings was initiated against the principal borrower. However, the principal borrower has filed a petition before this court, in which an ad-interim order of stay has been granted and therefore, the Bank is not proceeding against the principal borrower and has proceeded against the petitioner who is a guarantor and therefore, the impugned order be quashed.
4. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.
5. Admittedly, the petitioner is a guarantor to the transaction in question. His liability is co-extensive with that of the borrower. It is the choice of the Bank either to proceed against the principal borrower or guarantor. No legal tenable ground was made out by the learned counsel for the petitioner to assail the order dated 09.01.2019. Therefore, no interference is called for under exercise of powers under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India with the impugned order. However, the petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to raise an objection, if so advised before the Principal Civil Judge, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shivamogga. Needless to state that in case the petitioner files such a objection the same shall be dealt with in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid liberty, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE SS