Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21st DAY OF JULY, 2017 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR.SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHERJEE, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.105 OF 2016 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN
R.SHANKARAPPA S/O RAMAKRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/O NO.31, 18TH CROSS, 34TH MAIN IDEAL HOMES TOWNSHIP RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR, BANGALORE-50 098. ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI D.L.N.RAO, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI M.R.RAJAGOPAL, ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPT. OF CO-OPERATION VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560 001.
2 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, BANGALORE.
THE TAHASILDAR BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK BANGALORE-01.
THE GREATER BOMBAY CO-OP. BANK LTD, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, GBCB HOUSE, 89, BHULESHWAR, MUMBAI-02.
THE SPECIAL RECOVERY AND SALES OFFICER GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA DEPT. OF CO-OPERATION OFFICE AT NO.89, GBCB HOUSE BHULESHWAR MUMBAI-02.
IDEAL HOMES CO-OPERATIVE BUILDING SOCIETY LTD, BY ITS SECRETARY, IDEAL HOMES TOWNSHIP MYSORE ROAD BANGALORE-560 026.
THE ASST. REVENUE OFFICER RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR SUB RANGE BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALILKE, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR BANGALORE-560098.
SRI UDAYA RAM YERUMAL S/O R.K.THINGALAYA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/A 3RD CROSS, WIDIA LAYOUT OPP. INCOME TAX LAYOUT VIJAYANAGAR BANGALORE-560040. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI V.SREENIDHI, AGA, FOR R-1, R-2, R-3 AND R-7; SRI UDAY HOLLA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI NAMAN JHABAKH, ADVOCATE FOR R-4; SRI S.G.MUNISWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R-5; SRI N.RAMACHANDRA, ADVOCATE FOR R-6; SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R-8 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 29.10.2015 PASSED IN W.P. NO.12518/13.
THIS APPEAL ALONG WITH THE INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER ON I.A. NO.I OF 2016
Mr.V.Sreenidhi, learned additional government advocate, appears for the respondent nos.1, 2, 3 and 7.
Mr.Uday Holla, learned senior advocate appears with his junior, Mr.Naman Jhabakh, for the respondent no.4.
Mr.S.G.Muniswamy, learned advocate, appears for the respondent no.5.
Mr.N.Ramachandra, learned advocate, appears for the respondent no.6.
In spite of service of notice, none appears for the respondent no.8.
After hearing Mr.D.L.N.Rao, learned senior advocate in support of the application for condonation of delay, and the learned advocates for the contesting parties, we are satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the memorandum of writ appeal in
5 time. Therefore, the delay in filing the writ appeal is condoned.
The application stands allowed.
We make no order as to costs.
JUDGMENT IN THE MAIN APPEAL
By consent, the appeal is taken up for preliminary hearing.
As suggested by the learned advocates appearing for the contesting parties, and as it appears to us that the suggestion is reasonable, we dispose of the writ appeal with a request to the Hon’ble Single Judge to dispose of Writ Petition No.3023 of 2016 independently and uninfluenced by the observations made in the order impugned.
We, however, express no opinion on the merits. All the questions are kept open.
6 5. By our order dated June 21, 2017, we had directed the Tahsildar to invest the money paid by the auction purchaser of the property in question in any nationalized bank in a short term deposit. We direct that the deposit and accrued interest would abide by any order that may be passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge.
In view of the disposal of the writ appeal as aforesaid, all pending interlocutory applications do not survive for consideration and they are, also, disposed of.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/- JUDGE
vgh*