Rajeev Hundekar vs the General Manager

Rajeev Hundekar vs The General Manager

Type Court Judgment Court Karnataka Orders Decided Jan 31, 2026

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1572425

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1572425
Court: Karnataka Orders High Court
Judge: C.M. Poonacha
Decided On: Jan 31, 2026
Case Number: RP/588/2023

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Rajeev Hundekar

Respondent

The General Manager

Excerpt

.....of interest should be stopped. it is further submitted that merely because the records were not produced, the said contention of the petitioner was not accepted.3. per contra, learned counsel for the respondent - bank vehemently disputed the fact that the petitioner has made thepayment of any amount as is sought to be contended. it is further submitted that only photocopies of the demand drafts have been produced and no payments have been made.4. it is forthcoming that in the writ petition, the petitioner had challenged the order dated 28.02.2018 passed in appeal no.154/2016 passed by the tribunal and the order dated 29.02.2016 passed in jrd/ubf/2348/14-15 by the jointregistrar (respondent no.4). the joint registrar vide award dated 29.02.2016 rejected the application made by the writ petitioner and directed for payment of `29,89,055/- together hereinafter referred to as 'tribunal' -4-with interest. it is pertinent to note that the appeal no.154/2016 was filed by the society. although it is sought to be submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had challenged the order dated 28.02.2018 passed by the joint registrar in appeal no.145/2016, it is clear and forthcoming that the order impugned in the writ petition is theorder dated 28.02.2018 passed in appeal no.154/2016.5. be that as it may, the contention that accruing of interestshould be stopped from the date of deposit of `30,86,561/- is without prejudice to the appeal filed by petitioner and as also without prejudice to writ appeal no.101489/2016 filed by the bank. it is noticed that writ appeal no.101489/2016 filed by the bank has been dismissed by the division bench of this court.6. it is noticed that the deposit of the amount, if any, is notan unconditional and the same was not made to the loan account. it is also noticed that there was more than one loan account and that the petitioner was the surety in respect of recovery that is sought to be made in respect of.....

Full Judgment

-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA REVIEW PETITION NO. 588 OF 2023 BETWEEN: RAJEEV HUNDEKAR S/O SIDDRAMAAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/O NO. 9, 3RD MAIN, 11TH CROSS, PRASANTH NAGAR, BANGALORE-79 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRAVEEN KUMAR RAIKOTE, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE GENERAL MANAGER SRI VEERAPULKESHI COOPERATIVE BANK, BADAMI-587201 Digitally signed by
NIRMALA      2.    SRI SATISH
DEVI               S/O SIDDRAMAAPPA,
Location:          AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
HIGH COURT         R/O NO. 81, VINOD APARTMENT
OF                 2ND FLOOR, BASAVESHWAR NAGAR,
KARNATAKA BANGALORE-79
3. SRI SIDDRAMAAPPA S/O GURULINGAPPA HUNDEKAR, R/O NO. 81, VINOD APARTMENT 2ND FLOOR, BASAVESHWAR NAGAR, BANGALORE-79
4. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF
-2- CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI-580030 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. KALYAN RAO SHANKERRAO PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC R/W ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS REVIEW PETITION AND REVIEW THE

ORDER PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NO. 24388/2018 (CS-RES)

DATED 07TH NOVEMBER 2023, AND RESTORE THE WRIT PETITION 24388/2018 TO ITS FILE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,

ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

ORAL ORDER

1. The present review petition is filed by the writ petitioner seeking to review the order dated 07.11.2023 (impunged order) passed in Writ Petition No.24388/2018 (CS-RES).

2. The primary contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has deposited a sum of `30,86,561/- with the respondent - bank vide letter dated been acknowledged by the bank vide e-mail dated 13.07.2016 -3-

(Annexure-H to the writ petition) and the only contention that was urged before the Joint Registrar as well as the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal1, Bengaluru, is that from the date when the deposit of the said amount of `30,86,561/- was made, the accruing of interest should be stopped. It is further submitted that merely because the records were not produced, the said contention of the petitioner was not accepted.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent - bank vehemently disputed the fact that the petitioner has made the

payment of any amount as is sought to be contended. It is further submitted that only photocopies of the demand drafts have been produced and no payments have been made.

4. It is forthcoming that in the writ petition, the petitioner had challenged the order dated 28.02.2018 passed in Appeal No.154/2016 passed by the Tribunal and the order dated 29.02.2016 passed in JRD/UBF/2348/14-15 by the Joint

Registrar (respondent No.4). The Joint Registrar vide award dated 29.02.2016 rejected the application made by the writ petitioner and directed for payment of `29,89,055/- together hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal' -4-

with interest. It is pertinent to note that the Appeal No.154/2016 was filed by the society. Although it is sought to be submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had challenged the order dated 28.02.2018 passed by the Joint Registrar in Appeal No.145/2016, it is clear and forthcoming that the order impugned in the writ petition is the

order dated 28.02.2018 passed in appeal No.154/2016.

5. Be that as it may, the contention that accruing of interest

should be stopped from the date of deposit of `30,86,561/- is without prejudice to the appeal filed by petitioner and as also without prejudice to Writ Appeal No.101489/2016 filed by the bank. It is noticed that Writ Appeal No.101489/2016 filed by the bank has been dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court.

6. It is noticed that the deposit of the amount, if any, is not

an unconditional and the same was not made to the loan account. It is also noticed that there was more than one loan account and that the petitioner was the surety in respect of recovery that is sought to be made in respect of other loan account. -5-

7. In view of the aforementioned, the decision of the authorities not accepting the contention of the petitioner to stop the accruing of interest cannot be faulted.

8. There is no ground made out to review the order dated

07.11.2023. However, it shall be open to the petitioner to demonstrate before the Executing Court the factum of payment of any amount, and if the same is demonstrated, the petitioner shall be entitled to claim benefit of the same in the recovery proceedings.

9. The review petition is rejected subject to the aforementioned observations. SD/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE ND List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20

Same Court & Year Karnataka Orders · 2026 Same Parties Rajeev Hundekar vs The General Manager Same Judge C.M. Poonacha