The Management of Sri Murudabasaveshwara Sc/St v. D G Mruthyunjayappa

Karnataka HC6 Dec 2021WP/21116/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka disposed of a writ petition impugning an execution court warrant attaching petitioner society's properties for salary arrears. The Court held the execution court must consider the Education Act provisions before attachment. Respondent retains liberty to enforce the tribunal order as modified.

What did the court decide?

Execution Court directed to consider Education Act provisions before attaching property; Respondent given liberty to seek orders for enforcing the modified Tribunal award.

The Management of Sri Murudabasaveshwara… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 06^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 21116/2019 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

THE MANAGEMENT OF SRI MURUDABASAVESHWARA SC/ST EDUCATION SOCIETY (REGD) DASARAKALLAHALLI VILLAGE, BHADRAVATI TALUK, SHIMOGA DISTRICT – 577 227. REP BY ITS PRESIDENT

¶8

THE HEAD MASTER SRI. MANJUNATHA HIGH SCHOOL DASARAKALLAHALLI VILLAGE, BHADRAVATI TALUK, SHIMOGA DISTRICT – 577 227.

¶9

... PETITIONERS

¶10

(BY SRI. N. RAMAKRISHNA., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. M R HIREMATHAD, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND :

¶12

D. G. MRUTHYUNJAYAPPA S/O R.G. DANHESHWARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS (AT THE TIME OF THE FILING) RESIDING OF RAMESHWARA, YERAGANALU POST, HONNALI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 002.

¶13

¶14

THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS SECONDARY EDUCATION, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 002.

¶15

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC EDUCATION SHIMOGA DISTRICT, SHIMOGA – 577 227.

¶16

... RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. S.V. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 SMT. JYOTHI BHAT., HCGP FOR R2 AND R3)

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND SETTING ASIDE THE EXECUTION PETITION NO.10/2016 DATED 03.04.2019 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE SHIVAMOGGA VIDE ANNEXURE-E.

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The first petitioner is a Private Education

¶22

Institution and the second petitioner is its Head Master, and the petitioners have impugned the order dated 03.04.2019 in Ex.No.10/2016 on the file of the Principal

¶23

Sessions Judge, Shivamogga (for short, ' the executing Court '). The executing Court by the impugned order has

¶24

¶25

allowed the first respondent's application under Order XXI Rule 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'CPC' ) and has issued warrant for attachment of the property.

¶26

This Court on 13.09.2019 has stayed further proceedings in the execution case, and the petition is listed today for orders on I.A.No.1/2019, an application by the first respondent for vacating the interim order granted by this Court. In the meanwhile, the petitioners have also filed application (I.A.No.1/2021) to urge, as an additional ground, that given the provisions of Sections 60 and 65 of the Karnataka Education Act 1983, the executing Court could not have issued warrant for attachment of the petitioners' property.

¶27

Sri. N.Ramakrishna, the learned counsel on behalf of Sri.M.R.Hiremath who is on record for the petitioners, Sri.S.V.Prakash, the learned counsel for the

¶28

¶29

first respondent, and Ms. Jyothi Bhat, learned High Court Government Pleader, are heard for final disposal of the petition with their consent.

¶30

The undisputed facts are that the first respondent, a physically challenged English Teacher, who had instituted a proceeding before Forum which had no jurisdiction, ultimately filed her appeal under Section 94 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 in MA(EAT) 21/2011. This appeal is allowed holding that the first respondent is entitled for reinstatement, arrears of salary and consequential benefits with direction to the first petitioner to reinstate the first respondent and pay arrears of salary and other consequential benefits. The first respondent has initiated the subject execution proceedings for enforcement of this order.

¶31

¶32

However, when the first respondent filed her execution proceedings, the writ petition filed by the petitioners calling in question the order dated 29.08.2015 in MA(EAT) 21/2011 before the Educational Tribunal was pending consideration. It is presently stated, and it is borne out by the records, that the petitioners' writ petition in W.P.No.45774/2015 (S-RES) is disposed of by this Court confirming the order dated 29.08.2015 in MA(EAT) 21/2011 but modifying such order only insofar as the first respondent's entitlement to arrears of salary.

¶33

The first respondent because of the interim orders granted by this Court has not been able to execute the attachment warrant issued by the impugned order but there is no dispute that the first respondent would be entitled to continue the execution proceedings in the light of this Court's order in W.P.No.45774/2015 (S-RES). Insofar as attachment of

¶34

¶35

the first petitioner’s property and the petitioners’ defence that such order cannot be made in the light of provisions of Sections 60 and 65 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983, this Court is of the considered view that the same must be considered by the executing Court before further process is issued to enable the first respondent to recover the entitlement for arrears of salary and consequential benefits.

¶36

Therefore, the writ petition stands disposed of invalidating the impugned order with liberty to the first respondent to seek necessary orders for enforcement of the order dated 29.08.2015 in MA(EAT) 21/2011 as modified by this Court in W.P.No.45774/2015 (S-RES).

¶37

Sd/JUDGE

¶38

The Management of Sri Murudabasaveshwara Sc/St v. D G Mruthyunjayappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Management of Sri Murudabasaveshwara Sc/St v. D G Mruthyunjayappa

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

Smt. Bhagyamma Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Smt Annapurna Vs Sri R Chandraiah Setty

N Shivakumar Vs Shivananjegowda

Smt Pushpa Bansal Vs P Pillappa

Kum B H Vasantha Vs Nil

Smt Venkatamma Vs Sri Munishami