HMP Cements Limited (Now Known as Global Cements Ltd. ) represented by its Director, Mr. D. V. Pillai and HMP Snehalata Malleshwaram Properties (P) Ltd. (Now Known as Malleshwaram, Properties Private Limited) represented by its Director, Mr. Sushil Kumar Ga vs Karnataka State Industrial Investment and Development Corporation Ltd. represented by its Asst. General Manager (Legal), HMP Engineering Ltd. Regd. (rep. by its Managing Director), Sri Mahabit Prasad Poddar S/o Hemraj Poddar and Sri Dewaki Nandan Poddar S

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2010 Supreme(Kar) 341

SUBHASH B.ADI
HMP Cements Limited (Now Known as Global Cements Ltd. ) represented by its Director, Mr. D. V. Pillai and HMP Snehalata Malleshwaram Properties (P) Ltd. (Now Known as Malleshwaram, Properties Private Limited) represented by its Director, Mr. Sushil Kumar Ga – Appellant
Versus
Karnataka State Industrial Investment and Development Corporation Ltd. represented by its Asst. General Manager (Legal), HMP Engineering Ltd. Regd. (rep. by its Managing Director), Sri Mahabit Prasad Poddar S/o Hemraj Poddar and Sri Dewaki Nandan Poddar S – Respondent

Advocates Appeared:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: C.G. Gopala Swamy, Adv. in W.P. No. 7224/2008 and D.S. Joshi, Adv. in W.P. No. 10811/2008
For Respondents/Defendant: D.S. Joshi, Adv. for R1 in W.P. No. 7224/2008 and C.G. Gopala Swamy, Adv. for R1 and 5 in W.P. No. 10811/2008

ORDER

Subhash B. Adi, J.

1. Petitioners are judgment debtors Nos. 1 and 5 in Execution No 138/2006. They have called in question the order dated 10.4.2008 passed by 6th Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore. Respondents Hob/2 to 4 are the co-judgment debtors. No relief is sought against respondent Nos. 2 to 4. Their presence is not required for the disposal of this matter.

2. Heard the teamed counsel Sri C.G. Gopalaswamy and Sri D.S. Joshi, learned Counsel far petitioners and contesting respondent No. 1.

3. Both the respondent No. 1 as well as the petitioners haw assailed the order paused by the executing court dated 10.4.2008. Insofar as the petitioners are concerned, they have questioned the maintainability of the execution proceedings. As far as respondent: No. 1 is concerned, it has assailed the order only as regard to the attachment once again.

4. Petitioner No. 1, and respondents 2 to 4 are the borrowers and petitioner No. 5 is a surety as well as the guarantor for the loan raised by them.

5. Respondent No. 1 filed Misc. 246/2000 under Section 31(1)(aa) and 32 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951, (hereinafter referred to an 'the Act'). In the said miscellaneous, proceedin

Click Here to Read the rest of this document