Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 51114 (KAR)

SUNDARA v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/7034/2025 · 2025-11-04

M G Uma

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44537 WP No. 7034 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA WRIT PETITION NO. 7034 OF 2025 (CS-RES) BETWEEN: SUNDARA S/O RAMA POOJARY, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, RESIDING AT #2-140, MORLA KODI MAJALU HOUSE, THOWDGOLI POST, NARINGANA, BANTWAL, D.K-575018. &PETITIONER (BY SRI. NAVEEN KUMAR M.G., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE RECOVERY OFFICER/THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, MANGALURU SUB-DIVISION, MANGALURU, D.K-575001, REP BY RECOVERY OFFICER. 3. SHREE BHAGAVATHI CO-OP BANK, NIYAMITHA, MORGANS GATE, JEPPU, MANGALURU, D.K-575004, REP BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, A SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT. &RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. YOGESH .D. NAIK, AGA FOR R1 & 2 SRI. KETHAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE AUCTION Digitally signed by PRASHANTH N V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44537 WP No. 7034 of 2025 NOTICE IN FORM NO. 8 AND FORM NO.9 DTD. 27.01.2025 ISSUED BY THE R-2 IN DECREE NO. 64/2024-25 AND E.P.NO. 167/2024-25 (ANNX-B AND C).AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING - B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA ORAL ORDER The petitioner has approached this Court seeking to quash the auction notice dated 27.01.2025 in Form Nos.8 and 9 issued by respondent No.3. 2. It is stated that no auction was held as scheduled and the petitioner is said to have paid some amount to respondent No.3. 3. In that view of the matter, the petitioner and the respondents can sort out their difference amicably and nothing remains to be considered in this writ petition. 4. Hence, the writ petition is disposed off. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE PNV - List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11