M/S Janatha Seva Co Operative Bank ... vs Mr Gangadhar Murthy C
2022 Latest Caselaw 3140 Kant

                           -1-


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

   DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                       PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. RITU RAJ AWASTHI, CHIEF JUSTICE
                          AND
   THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

        WRIT APPEAL NO.36 OF 2022 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
M/S JANATHA SEVA CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD
NO.14, RAJATHA BHAVANA
1ST MAIN ROAD, HAKKA ROAD
HAMPI NAGAR, 2ND STAGE
VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 104
REPRESENTED BY MR YOGESH B
                                            ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI LOKESH K.V, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1 . MR. GANGADHAR MURTHY C
    S/O CHANNIGAPPA
    AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
    R/O NO.322, 3RD A CROSS ROAD
    2ND BLOCK, 3RD STAGE
    BASAVESHAR NAGAR
    BENGALURU - 560 079

2 . MRS. KUSUMA R
    W/O MR. GANGADHAR MURTHY C
    S/O CHANNIGAPPA
    AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
    R/O NO.322, 3RD A CROSS ROAD
    2ND BLOCK, 3RD STAGE
    BASAVESHAR NAGAR
    BENGALURU - 560 079
                                         ... RESPONDENTS
                            ---
       THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE FINAL ORDER DATED 09.12.2021 PASSED BY THE LEARNED
SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION NO.22612/2021 (GM-RES)
AND ETC.
                             -2-




      THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:



                        JUDGMENT

This writ appeal has been filed challenging the

impugned judgment and order dated 09.12.2021 passed in

Writ Petition No.22612/2021.

2. The appellant being the respondent before the writ

Court has filed the instant appeal submitting that Equated

Monthly Installment (EMI) was not paid by the

respondents-petitioners and in case EMI is paid, the Bank

account of the respondents-petitioners would come out of

Non-Performing Asset (NPA) and he wants this much of

modification in the impugned order.

3. From the perusal of the order under challenge, it is

very much evident that the writ Court has disposed of the

writ petition on the concession having been granted by the

appellant/respondent-Bank and the impugned order is a

consent order and as such, we do not find any reason to

grant indulgence. The writ appeal is dismissed. However,

with liberty to the appellant to move appropriate application

in case the appellant-Bank intends to get the order

modified or reviewed.

Sd/-

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

JUDGE

AHB