Hanamant S/O Rudrappa Yaliwal vs The Manager
2021 Latest Caselaw 1652 Kant

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                   DHARWAD BENCH

      DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021

                           BEFORE

      THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA

           W.P.NO.115404/2019 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN

HANAMANT S/O RUDRAPPA YALIWAL,
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE,
R/O: ISHWAR NAGAR, 2ND MAIN ROAD,
1ST CROSS, ANTARAVALLI ROAD,
NEAR OIL MILL, RANEBENNUR.
                                                 .....PETITIONER
(BY SRI PRASHANT S KADADEVAR, ADV.)

AND

1.    THE MANAGER
      M/S. SHRIRAM CHITS (K) PVT. LTD.,
      GUNDI MANSINO,
      NEAR ANANTH RESIDENCY,
      III CROSS, J.C. NAGAR, HUBBALLI,
      RERESENTED BY ITS GPA HOLDER
      SRI.NAGARAJ TOTAD,
      AGE: 40 YEARS,
      OCC: LEGAL ASSISTANT OF
      M/S. SHRIRAM CHITS (K) PVT.,
      HUBBALLI.

2.    SMT.VIJAYALAXMI D/O KAILASH ARJUN CHAVAN
      AGE: 49 YEARS,
      R/O: HOUSE NO.254,
      KATTI STREET, NAVALUR,
      TQ AND DIST: DHARWAD-580009.

3.    PRABHU S/O MAHADEVAPPA SUNAGAR
      AGE: 64 YEARS,
                                :2:



     R/O: NEAR DYAMAVVA TEMPLE,
     KAMALAPUR, DHARWAD-580008.
                                                    .....RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S.N. BANAKAR, ADV. FOR R-1
R-2 SERVED
R-3 SERVICE HELD SUFFICIENT)

      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING THIS COURT TO ISSUE A
WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DATED 31.07.2019 PASSED PASSED BY THE DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, DHARWAD IN E P NO.576/2016 (ANNEXURE-C) IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

    THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING-'B'-
GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                            : ORDER :

This writ petition is filed challenging the

attachment of the salary of the p etitioner.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

submits that the issue raised in the writ petition is

covered by the d ecision rend ered in

W.P.No.115353/2019 and this writ p etition may

therefore b e d ismissed .

3. It is not in disp ute that, in this case also the

award suffered by the p etitioner has become final and

the petitioner by virtue of b eing a judgment deb tor is

bound to satisfy the award .

4. As has already b een held in

W.P.No.115353/2019 the contention that the coercive

proceedings cannot b e initiated against the sureties

until the recovery process ag ainst the p rincip al

borrowers are exhausted, cannot be accep ted.

5. Since both the princip al borrowers and

sureties are jointly and severally liable for the award

there is no merit in the arguments of the petitioner and

consequently the writ petition fails and the p etition is

accord ing ly dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE EM