1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. RITU RAJ AWASTHI, CHIEF JUSTICE

AND

THE HON9BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

WRIT APPEAL CROB.NO.1 OF 2021 (GM-KSFC)

IN WRIT APPEAL NOS.35-36 OF 2016

BETWEEN:

SMT.PUSHPA N. P.

D/O LATE N.B. PRAKASH

AGED 50 YEARS

OCC:NIL, R/O #54B

17^TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM

BANGALORE - 560 055

...CROSS OBJECTOR

(BY SMT. VIJETHA R. NAIK, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

THE KARNATAKA STATE FINANCE

CORPORATION, SHANKARANARAYANA

BUILDING, 5^TH FLOOR, NO.25

M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001

REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

2.

SHRI CHAKRA ENGINEERING

EQUIPMENTS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM

HAVING ITS OFFICE AT PLOT NO.21A

11 PHASE, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA

2

BANGALORE - 560 058

REPTD. BY ITS PARTNER

SRI.VIJAY RAGHAVAN

3.

SRI. RAGHAVENDRA CONCRETE PRODUCTS

(PVT.) LIMITED, NO.1600 AND 1597/8

NAGAPPA BLOCK, BANGALORE - 560 021

REPTD. BY ITS FULL TIME DIRECTOR

SRI. K. N. RAJAGOPAL

& RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.BIPIN HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R1;

SRI.VISWANATH SABARAD, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS WRIT APPEAL CROB IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF

THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 READ WITH RULE 27 OF

THE WRIT PROCEEDINGS RULES, 1977 PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT

IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT, ORDER OR

DIRECTION

AND

QUASH

THE

NOTICES

DATED

12.10.2009

BEARING

NO.KSFC/JBO/MB/01-781/R975

PRODUCED

AS

ANNEXURE E AND E1 IN THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC.,

THIS WRIT APPEAL CROB HAVING BEEN HEARD AND

RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 17.11.2021, COMING ON FOR

PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, SACHIN SHANKAR

MAGADUM J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

The captioned cross appeal is filed by the petitioner No.2

to the writ petition challenging the order dated 19.11.2015

passed in W.P.Nos.30433-30434/2009.

3

2.

The cross objector along with one Smt. Malini

Prakash filed writ petition questioning the notices dated

12.10.2009. The present cross objector claiming to be the

daughter of the guarantor for the loan transaction with the

respondent No.1/Corporation questioned the impugned notices

dated 12.10.2009. Pending writ petition, the respondent

No.1/Corporation has proceeded against the secured assets

and sold in favour of the respondent No.2 herein and

accordingly sale certificate also came to be issued.

3.

The learned Single Judge having verified the

records was of the view that the principal borrower instituted a

suit

against

the

respondent

No.1/Corporation

and

the

Corporation suffered a decree against which an appeal is

already preferred by the respondent No.1/Corporation and this

compelled the respondent No.1/Corporation to proceed against

the guarantor and therefore, the learned Single Judge was of

the view that no fault can be attributed against the

Corporation for having taken recourse to proceed against the

4

secured assets of the guarantor. However, the learned Single

Judge was of the view that it was bounden duty of the

respondent No.1/Corporation to bring it to the notice of the

Court where the matter is seized. Learned Single Judge,

however, held that the respondent No.1/Corporation and the

auction purchaser cannot interfere with the possession of the

cross objector till the appeal pending before the Appellate

Court in RFA.No.1402/2008 is heard and disposed of on

merits. On these set of grounds, the learned Single Judge

disposed of the writ petition by taking judicial note of the sale

consideration paid by the auction purchaser to the tune of

Rs.7.30 Crores. The learned Single Judge has also observed

that Rs.4.75 Crores is the excessive amount recovered over

and above the loan transaction and the present cross objector

is entitled for refund in respect of the excess amount of sale

price which is in deposit.

4.

The order passed by the learned Single Judge in

W.P.Nos.30433-30434/2009 was challenged by the auction

5

purchaser who was arrayed as respondent No.2 in