SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 439700

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
MR. B. N. BHASKAR – Appellant
Versus
SRI. RAMA SEVA PRIMARY CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD. – Respondent
WP 37816/2025



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

WRIT PETITION NO. 37816 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

1. MR. B. N. BHASKAR

S/O MR NARAYANAIAH AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS

LATE MR B N RAMAIH

S/O NARAYANAIAH

SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS

[

2. SMT.SUSHEELAMMA

WIFE OF LATE B N RAMAIAH,

AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS

R/A BILALKOPPA,

BILALKOPPA POST,

ATTIKUKDIGE VILLAGE,

KOPPA TALUK,

CHICKMAGALURUDISTRICT 577126

3. MR SUBASH

Digitally signed S/O LATE B N RAMAIAH

by

AGE ABOUT 30 YARS

GAVRIBIDANUR

R/A AT BAILALKOPPA,

SUBRAMANYA

GUPTA BILALKOPPA POST,

SREENATH

ATTIKUKDIGE VILLAGE,

Location: HIGH KOPPA TALUK,

COURT OF

KARNATAKA CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT - 577126

4. SMT SUKANYA

D/O LATE B N RAMAIAH AND WIFE OF

T MANJUNATHA

AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

R/A TALIGUGUNDI, HIREJENI,

KOTETARIGA POST, HOSANAGARA TALUK,

SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577418

5. MR B N VASUDEVAMURTHY S/O NARAYANAIAH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS

6. MR B N VENKATARAMANA S/O OF NARAYANAIAH AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS

7. MR B N SATHISH S/O OF NARAYANAIAH AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS 8. SMT NAGARATHNA W/O B N KRISHNAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 57 EYARS PETITIONER NOS.1 AND 5 TO 8 ARE RESIDING AT BAILALUKOPPA (BILALKOPPA), ATTIKUDIGE VILLAGE, KOPPA TALUK CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT - 577126 … PETITIONERS (BY SRI. DHANANJAY JOSHI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI.VACHAN H U.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI. RAMA SEVA PRIMARY CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD., FORMED UNDER THE KARNATAKA CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1959 KARIMANE, LOKANATHAPURA, KOPPA TALUK, CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT REP. BY ITS PRESENT MANAGER MR VASUDEVA BHAT S/O MANJUNATHA BHAT AGED ABOUT 53 YARS R/AT LOKANATHAPURA, KOPPA TALUK CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT 577126 … RESPONDENT THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 25.09.2025 (ANNX-A) IN EXECUTION PETITION NO. 03 OF 2018 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE HONORABLE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT NR PURA ITINERATE AT KOPPA.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

ORAL ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

2. This petition is filed by the petitioners, who are the Judgment debtors before the Executing Court being aggrieved by the rejection of the memo of calculation filed before the executing Court regarding the calculation of the amount, which is decided by way of an OTS settlement.

3. It is the contention of senior counsel Sri.Dhananjay Joshi that the executing Court has not considered the memo of calculation filed by the petitioners/judgment debtors before the executing Court and has mechanically dismissed the memo of calculation. He further contends that the impugned order is perverse, arbitrary and contrary to the agreements between both judgment debtors and the decree holder.

4. It is further contended that the memo of calculation filed by the petitioners/judgment debtors is in accordance with the OTS approval and there is a mathematical error in the calculation made by the bank. Hence, the executing Court ought to have made a mathematical calculation based on the memo of calculations filed by the parties and could have arrived at a conclusion by itself, which it has not done and dismissed the application without making calculation or seeking approval from both parties, he further contends that memo of calculation was not filed by the DHR. Hence, he contends that the executing Court has mechanically passed the order dismissing the memo of calculation, which is the subject matter in this petition.

5. This Court does not find the need or necessity to issue notice to the respondent/decree holder/co-operative bank for the reason that this Court is not inclined to pass any adverse order against the respondent/decree holder/co-operative bank but is inclined to remit the matter back to the executing Court to reconsider the memo of calculation by taking a memo of calculation from the decree holder as well, as it is a mathematical calculation with regard to the OTS approval, wh

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top