Dismissed

Mrs Maimuna v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC8 Dec 2023WP/951/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a writ petition to quash an auction notice fixed for 25.01.2023. The court held that since the interim stay order conditions were not complied with and the auction date had passed, the petition was dismissed as infructuous.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as infructuous as the auction date had passed. Respondent 3 permitted to proceed for recovery.

Mrs Maimuna Vs the State of Karnataka — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

NC: 2023:KHC:44608 WP No. 951 of 2023

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT PETITION NO. 951 OF 2023 (CS-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MRS. MAIMUNA, W/O. MR. HASANABBA SAYYED BEARY, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, DOOR NO: 2-485, JARIGHAR, KOLAMBE VILLAGE, POST: BAJPE - 574 142, MANGALORE TALUK, D. K.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. K. SHASHIKANTH PRASAD, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by BHARATHI S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, ALI ASKAR ROAD, NEAR RAJ BHAVAN, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶14

RECOVERY OFFICER (NI-441) AND ASSISTANT, REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, KARNATAKA STATE SOUHERDHA SAYUKTHA, SAHAKARI NIYANITHA, NO: 246, 17 AND 18TH CROSS, MARGOSA ROAD, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU - 560 055.

¶15

ODIYOOR SRI VIVIDHODDESHA SOWHARDHA CO-OPERATIVE NI.,

¶16

NC: 2023:KHC:44608 WP No. 951 of 2023

¶17

¶18

REPRESENTED BY BRANCH MANAGER, ODIYOOUR - 574 243, BANTWAL, (REGISTERED UNDER THE KARNATAKA SOUHARDA SAKARI ACT, 1997)

¶19

MR. MOHAMMED ASHRAF, S/O. MR. UMMER BEARY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, NELIYADI VILLAGE AND POST UPPINANGADY - 574 241, PUTTUR TALUK, D. K.

¶20

MR. ESUBU, S/O. MR. MOHAMMED HAJI, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, POST: KORNADKA - 574 202, PUTTUR TALUK, D. K.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SMT. AZRA J. DUNDGE, AGA FOR R1 AND R2, SRI. A. DEVARAJA, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶23

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTIION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE AUCTION NOTICE DATED 13.12.2022 FOR FORM NO.8 AND FORM NO.9 IN E.P.NO.KA.RA.SOW.SUM.SA.NI./VA/A/206/2020.21 FOR AUCTION TO BE HELF ON 25.01.2023(ANNEXUE-A AND B).

¶24

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

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The present writ petition is filed challenging the auction notices dated 13.12.2022, fixed the date of auction as 25.01.2023. This Court vide order dated 17.01.2023 has

¶27

¶28

NC: 2023:KHC:44608 WP No. 951 of 2023

¶29

granted interim stay subject to the condition that petitioner has to deposit a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- within six weeks.

¶30

Learned counsel for respondent No.3-Bank submits that the condition imposed in the interim order dated 17.01.2023 has not been complied with. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner had earlier filed W.P.No.4998/2022 and W.P.No.15710/2022 and this Court vide orders dated 28.07.2023 and 05.09.2022 has dismissed these said writ petitions.

¶31

In view of the aforementioned and the fact that the

¶32

date for auction having already passed, the above petition is dismissed as having been rendered infructuous.

¶33

It is made clear that respondent No.3 is permitted

¶34

to proceed further in accordance with law for recovery of monies due and payable by the petitioner, if any.

¶35

Sd/JUDGE

¶36

¶37

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14

Mrs Maimuna v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs Maimuna v. the State of Karnataka

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

Siddaiah Vs the Principal Secretary

Mahabaladas Vs Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies

Sri B. Kempe Gowda Vs Deputy Registrar of

M.M.Anandam Vs Mysore Lachaiah Setty and Sons (P)Ltd

P Manikandan Vs M/S Vaigai Thread Processors Pvt. Ltd.

Mr. Pramodh. P Vs the State of Karnataka