Dismissed

M T Vishwanath v. D.C. Girish

Karnataka HC15 Jul 2024WP/3976/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ petition challenging an order for auctioning property offered as security for a cheque default. The Court held the petition was not maintainable as petitioners did not challenge the underlying Section 69 order. The Court reserved liberty for appeal and directed the execution authority to consider the deposit before taking coercive steps.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as not maintainable. Liberty reserved to file appeal under Section 70. Respondent instructed not to take coercive steps pending appeal.

M T Vishwanath Vs D.C. Girish — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:27315 WP No. 3976 of 2020

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF JULY, 2024 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 3976 OF 2020 (GM-CFA)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

M T VISHWANATH S/O THIMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, PROP-M/S VISHWAS GINGER TRADERS, BYPASS ROAD, NEAR HALUVAGILU CIRCLE B M ROAD, HASSAN R/O C/O ANNATHEGOWDA, 1^ST FLOOR, VALLABAI ROAD, 5^TH CROSS, HASSAN – 573 201.

¶7

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶8

SYED HAFEEZ S/O S J SYED AMEER AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, PROP: M/S. P G TRADERS, HEMAVATHI COMPLEX, BHUVANESHWARI ROAD NEAR BSNL OFFICE, SAKALESHPUR, HASSAN DISTRICT, R/O HIG-3, HOUSING BOARD, NEAR MANASA SAMYUKTA P U COLLEGE KUSHALANAGAR SAKALESHPURA, HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 201.

¶9

K M PRAKASH S/O K S SASTRY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, PROP-M/S. SRIKANTESHWARA AGRO CENTER, NO.516, THANNIRUALLA B M ROAD HASSAN, R/O NO.122, VIJAYANAGAR 2^ND STAGE, BELUR ROAD, HASSAN – 573 201.

¶10

JAVEED PASHA S/O ABDUL HAMEED AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, 2^ND CROSS, BEHIND TELEPHONE EXCHANGE, GANDINAGAR, CHIKAMAGALORE.

¶11

¶12

NC: 2024:KHC:27315 WP No. 3976 of 2020

¶13

R/O 2^ND CROSS, BEHIND TELEPHONE EXCHANGE, GANDINAGAR, CHIKAMAGALORE – 577 101.

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI. GIRISH B BALADARE, ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

D.C. GIRISH S/O D M CHANNAPPAGOWDA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, PROP- M/S. GIRI TRADERS RALISH BAR BUILDING, B M ROAD, SAKALESHPUR HASSAN, R/O DEBBEGADDE KYAMANAHALLY POST SAKALESHPURA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 201.

¶18

FOREMEN M/S. MARGADARSI CHITS (KAR) PVT LTD NO.1874, 1^ST FLOOR, CITY POINT COMPLEX, B M ROAD, HASSAN.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. P P JAYAKUMARA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶21

THIS WP FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 16.03.2019 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT HASSAN IN EXECUTION NO.94/2018 AND ITS CONSEQUENTIAL PROCEEDINGS AS PER ANNEXURE-H.

¶22

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

¶23

ORDER

¶24

This petition challenges the order dated 16.03.2019, passed by the Additional Senior Judge and JMFC, Hassan, in Execution No.94/2018. This order sought to auction the property belonging to the petitioners, which was offered as security for the repayment of the cheque amount.

¶25

¶26

NC: 2024:KHC:27315 WP No. 3976 of 2020

¶27

In light of the interim order granted by this Court, the petitioners have deposited a sum of Rs.8,00,000/-. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that as of today, a sum of Rs.50,82,000/- is due from the petitioners, who stood as guarantors for the repayment of the chit amount on behalf of the principal borrower, i.e., respondent No.1 herein. The petitioners have not questioned the order passed under Section 69 of the Chit Funds Act, 1982. Since the petitioners have not challenged the order passed under Section 69 of the Act, the present petition is not maintainable.

¶28

Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed as not maintainable, reserving liberty for the petitioners to file an appeal under Section 70 of the Act challenging the order passed under Section 69 of the Act in accordance with the law. Time spent prosecuting the appeal shall be excluded for the purpose of computing the limitation period. All contentions are kept open.

¶29

The Appellate Authority shall consider the amount of Rs.8,00,000/- deposited by the petitioners when considering the interim prayer. If the appeal is filed within three weeks from today, respondent No.2 shall not take any precipitative coercive steps to auction the petitioners' property.

¶30

Sd/JUDGE

¶31

M T Vishwanath v. D.C. Girish

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M T Vishwanath v. D.C. Girish

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. Ranjitha Vs Sri. G S Siddesha Swamy

The Divisional Manager Vs Jaganath

Sri S R Chinnaswamy Reddy Vs M/S Smr Builders Pvt., Ltd.

D S Ashok Kumar (Dy. S.P) Vs the Karnataka State Human Rights Commission

Sri K Somashekar Reddy Vs State of Karnataka

M.T. Kumar Vs State of Karnataka