IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION No.31580/2014 (GM-KSFC) BETWEEN:
SRI U.N. RAMADAS BALLAL, S/O NARYAN BALLAL, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, R/A No.351, I MAIN, 3RD CROSS, HMT LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560032.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI SUHAS T.L., ADVOCATE - ABSENT) AND:
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KARNATAKA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION LTD., NO.1/1, THIMMAIAH ROAD, NEAR CANTONMENT RAILWAY STATION, BANGALORE-560052.
2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSIIDC LIMITED, KHANIJA BHAVAN, 4TH FLOOR EAST WING, #49, RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE-560001.
3. M/S HOTEL KRISHNA INTERNATIONAL (INDIA) LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION), REP. BY THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AND HAVING HIS OFFICE AT, 11TH FLOOR, RAHEJA TOWER, M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE-560001.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI BIPIN HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R1, SRI K.S. MAHADEVAN, OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR FOR R3 – ABSENT M/S. LAKSHMY IYENGAR & ASSTS., ADVS. FOR R3 – ABSENT R2 – SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-1 TO CONSIDER THE CASE OF THE PETITIONER FOR DISCHARGE OF HIS GUARANTEE AS PER ANNX-R DTD 27.12.2007; QUASH THE MISC PETITION NO. 624/2002 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE AS IN ANNX-L; QUASH THE LETTER DTD 14.03.2014 ISSUED BY THE R-1 SINCE THE SAME IS ALSO BINDING ON THE PETITIONER WHO IS ALSO ONE OF THE GUARANTORS TO THE LOAN AVAILED BY THE R-3 AS IN ANNX-T.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R None for the petitioner.
Sri Bipin Hegde, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.
2. Records perused.
3. In this petition, the petitioner inter alia seeks writ of mandamus directing respondent No.1 to consider the case of the petitioner for discharge of his guarantee as per Annexure-R.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submitted that he is ready and willing to consider the case of the petitioner, if a representation is submitted by him, in accordance with law.
5. In view of the aforesaid submission and in the facts of the case, writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.1 to consider the grievance of the petitioner, if he submits a representation within a period of two weeks from the date of certified copy of the order passed today, in accordance with law by a speaking order within four weeks from the date of receipt of such representation.
6. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
Sd/- JUDGE MD