Dismissed

Hanumavva W/O Hanumanthappa Teggin v. the Managing Director

Karnataka HC19 Sept 2013WP/82102/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court rejected a writ petition challenging an executing court's order directing a fixed deposit and subsequent release of funds. The court held that the petitioners could file a memo of calculations for the balance amount and that minor petitioners could approach the Tribunal for award modification regarding their majority status.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was rejected.

Hanumavva W/O Hanumanthappa Teggin Vs the… — Execution and Attachment | Karnataka HC (2013)

¶1

: 1 :

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE H.N.NAGAMOHAN DAS

¶6

WRIT PETITION No. 82102/2013 (GM-AC)

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

Smt. HANUMAVVA W/O. HANUMANTHAPPA TEGGIN AGE 48 YEARS OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O. HIREBIDARI VILLAGE RANEBENNUR TQ HAVERI DIST.

¶9

Smt. VIJAYALAXMI D/O. HANUMANTHAPPA TEGGIN AGE 28 YEARS, OCC. NIL R/O. HIREBIDARI VILLAGE RANEBENNUR TQ HAVERI DIST.

¶10

KUMARI SAVITA W/O. SUBHAS ARASINAL AGE 29 YEARS, OCC. NIL R/O. HIREBIDARI VILLAGE RANEBENNUR TQ HAVERI DIST. … PETITIONERS

¶11

(BY Sri. NAGANAGOUDA R KUPPELLUR, ADV.)

¶12

: 2 :

¶13

AND :

¶14

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KSRTC, DOUBLE ROAD SHANTINAGAR, HUBLI.

¶15

Smt. PUSHPA M KARWARKAR W/O. LATE H G TEGGIN

¶16

Smt. RAMESHWARI D/O. LATE H G TEGGIN AGED 24 YEARS

¶17

KUMAR PAVANKUMAR S/O. LATE H G TEGGIN AGE 22 YEARS

¶18

R-2 TO 4 ARE R/O. H. No. 93 K.H.B. COLONY, SIRSI R-3 & R-4 BEING MINORS ARE REP. BY R-2 THEIR MOTHER. … RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY Smt. VIDYAVATHI, AGA)

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA WITH A PRAYER TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 14.06.2013 AND ETC.

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

: 3 :

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

In this writ petition the petitioners have prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 14.06.2013 in execution No. 254/2012 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge at Hubli.

¶25

Petitioners are the decree holders in M.V.C. No. 147/2004. Petitioners filed E.P.No. 254/2012 to execute the award in M.V.C. No. 147/2004. The respondent judgment-debtors deposited a sum of Rs.7.00 lakhs. Under the impugned order the executing Court directed deposit of certain money in fixed deposit and released certain amount in favour of petitioner No. 1. Aggrieved by this order of the executing Court the petitioners are before this Court.

¶26

The impugned order passed by the executing Court is in terms of the award. Learned counsel for the petitioners contend that there is shortage of deposit by the respondent judgment-debtors. If that is so it is open for the petitioners to file memo of calculations before the executing Court and request for issue of warrant for the

¶27

: 4 :

¶28

balance amount. In that event the executing Court to consider the same in accordance with law and strictly in terms of the award.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioners secondly contend that petitioner Nos.2 and 3 were minors when the claim petition was filed and now they have attained majority. This development is not considered by the executing Court. If that is so it is open for the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 to approach the Tribunal seeking modification of the award. In that event the Tribunal to consider the claim of petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 in accordance with law. I find no justifiable ground to interfere with the impugned order. With the

¶30

above observations the writ petition is hereby rejected.

¶31

Sd/JUDGE

¶32

Lrs.

Hanumavva W/O Hanumanthappa Teggin v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hanumavva W/O Hanumanthappa Teggin v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Srinivas S/O. Prakash Kyarakatti Vs the Commissioner of

Venkappa S/O. Ramappa Maraddi Vs the District Registrar of Societies

Anilkumar Shirahatti S/O Parameshwar Vs the State of Karnataka

Rafiqahamad Kagadgar Vs the Karnataka State

Sharanappa Vs Assistant Executive Engineer

M/S Vishal Bar, Chikkodi Vs the State of Karnataka