High CourtsSingle Bench(2010) 09 KAR CK 0148

Sri Yoginarayana Credit Co-operative Society Limited vs Registrar General High Court of Karnataka

Karnataka High Court · Decided on 30 September 2010

HON’BLE JUDGES
Mohan Shantanagoudar, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 8734 of 2010

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 592 words

Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.—The 3rd Respondent stood as surety to the principal borrower viz.,. Mr. Babu Rao, who along with his wife Mrs. Sujatha, borrowed a sum of Rs. 20,000/-. The borrower defaulted to repay the amounts due. Ultimately, the award came to be passed by the Joint-Registrar of Co-operative Societies for recovery of Rs. 28,314/-. The decreed amount is not paid. Thus, execution proceedings are initiated against the borrower and Respondent No. 3. In the execution proceedings, second Respondent passed an order directing that the salary of the third Respondent be attached for a sum of Rs. 80,000/- and to withhold an amount of Rs. 2,500/- per month from the salary of the third Respondent in 32 instalments towards realisation of decretal amount. The principal borrower viz., Babu Rao and his wife Mrs. Sujatha are unheard off. Since the salary of the third Respondent is not attached by the first Respondent, as per the direction of the second Respondent, this writ petition is filed praying for the direction to the first Respondent to comply with the attachment order dated 14.3.2009, issued by the second Respondent under Rule 37(1) of the Cooperative Societies Rules, 1960. Other consequential reliefs are prayed for by the Petitioner in the writ petition.

2.

Learned Government Advocate on instructions, brings to the notice of the Court that the two awards are already passed against the Petitioner apart from the award in question. In first matter, the decree-holder Sri Jayachamaraja Credit Co-operative Society and in the second matter, the decree-holder is Sri Varuna Co-operative Bank Limited. These awards are passed on 25.7.2006 and 27.5.2007 respectively. The award in question is passed on 2.5.2007. The aforementioned two decree-holders, viz., Jayachamaraja Credit co-operative Society and Sri Varuna Co-operative Bank Limited have initiated execution and the in the execution the attachment of the salary of the third Respondent is already ordered. Consequently, an amount of Rs. 650/- is being deducted from the monthly salary of the third Respondent, in respect of the decree passed in favour of the Jayachamaraja Credit Co-operative Society Limited, whereas an amount of Rs. 1,700/- is being deducted from monthly salary of the third Respondent to satisfy the award made in favour of Sri Varuna Co-operative Bank Limited. The total balance to be recovered in respect those awards are Rs. 53,050/- and Rs. 46,525/-, respectively as on 21.7.2010.

3.

As per Article 93(2) of the Karnataka Financial Code 1978, the salary of the employees of the Government or the Local Authority is not liable to be attached in the first four hundred rupees and two thirds of the remainder in execution of any decree other than a decree for maintenance. Thus, it is clear that 1/3rd of the salary of Respondent No. 3 is not liable to be attached in the first four hundred rupees. The 1/3rd of the amount of the gross salary of Respondent No. 3 works out Rs. 2,376/-. An amount of Rs. 2,350/-is already being deducted from the salary of the third Respondent to satisfy the two awards made in favour of Sri Jayachamaraja Credit Co-operative Society Limited and Sri Varuna Co-operative Bank Limited. Hence, no further attachment or deduction from the salary of the third Respondent is permitted. Accordingly, the relief as prayed for in the writ petition cannot be granted.

Hence, writ petition fails and accordingly same is dismissed.

MSGJ: W.P. No. 8734/2010(CS-DAS)

28.10.2010

ORDER ON BEING SPOKEN TO

The name of Respondent No. 3 is not typed due to clerical mistake. Hence, the said mistake needs to be corrected.

Ordered accordingly.