AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORAL ORDER
The present writ petition is filed seeking for the following reliefs:
"a)Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the impugned order dated 30.03.2023 passed by the XCI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-92), in Misc.No.438/2020, insofar as it affects the petitioners' respective sites and rights in Sy.No.45/3 of Giddadakonenahalli Village."
The petitioners who are the purchasers of sites under various registered sale deeds as articulated in paragraph No.7 of the writ petition are before this Court assailing the order dated 30.03.2022 passed in Misc.No.438/20201 by the XCI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore (CCH-92)2 (Annexure A to the writ petition), wherein the petition under Section 5(2) of the Karnataka Protection of Interest of
2 Hereinafter referred ad to 'Special Court' Depositors in Financial Establishments Act, 20043 has been allowed.
It is the case of the petitioners that the sites purchased by the petitioners from part of Survey No.45/3 of Giddadakonenahalli Village, Yeshwanthpura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that various sites holders had preferred appeals under Section 16 of the Act, assailing the impugned order and a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Asha. N and other V.s Competent Authority and others4 has allowed the said appeals, set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Special Court for fresh consideration of the application filed under Section 5(2) of the Act. The order of a Division Bench reads as under:
"1.We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the Competent Authority.
2.Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the order passed by the Special Court on the application filed by the Competent Authority under Section 5(2) of the Karnataka Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act, 2004 (for short, "the KPIDFE Act"), is bad in law on various grounds.
3.It is contended that the application under Section 5(2) was filed after an inordinate delay. It is further contended that the appellants, who are the true owners of the property, were neither put on notice nor afforded an opportunity of hearing before the order was passed.
4.Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants have serious contentions on facts to be raised in the matter and that the matter may be remanded for fresh consideration by the Special Court after hearing the appellants as well.
5.The learned counsel for the respondent-Competent Authority contends that the factum of the initial attachment was intimated to the public at large by way of a paper publication and that the interim order of attachment was also affixed to the property. It is further contended that, in terms of Section 12(3) of the KPIDFE Act, even if no notice is served, it is open to the affected parties to approach the Special Court and file their objections, if any.
6.Having considered the contentions advanced, we notice that this case involves disputed questions of fact and that this is a fit case where the question as to whether the interim attachment in respect of the appellants' property is to be made absolute requires consideration by the Special Court after putting the appellants on notice.
7.In the above view of the matter, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The application filed by the Competent Authority under Section 5(2) is remanded to the Special Court for fresh consideration.
8.Without waiting for any further notice, the parties shall appear before the Special Court on 30.07.2026.
9.It is made clear that it is only in view of the special facts of the instant case, the disputed questions of fact which rises herein that the matter is being remanded for fresh consideration, and this order shall not be treated as a precedent in other cases. All contentions of the parties are left open."
(emphasis supplied)
It is clear from the order of the Division Bench that the very same order has been set aside in the said appeal.
Although, it is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for respondent No.1 - the Competent Authority that the said orders have been passed in an appeal filed under Section 16 of the Act and the said reliefs ought not be granted in the present writ petition, having regard to the fact that, the very same impugned order has already been set aside by the Division Bench as noticed above, the relief sought for by the petitioners in the present writ petition merits consideration.
It is also the contention of the learned counsel for respondent No.1 that, there is inordinate delay in filing the present writ petition in as much as impugned order was passed on 30.03.2022 whereas the present writ petition is filed on 07.09.2026.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that various site holders have already approached the Special Court and impleading applications filed by them are being allowed.
It is pertinent to notice that the Division Bench had noted the appellants therein who were similarly placed as the petitioners herein acquired right, title and interest in respect of the properties purchased by them and they had not been afforded an opportunity for hearing before the impugned order was passed.
In view of the aforementioned, having regard to the fact that the impugned order dated 30.03.2022 passed in Misc.No.438/2020 has already been set aside by the Division Bench in the case of Asha. N (supra), the question of once again setting aside the order does not arise. The application filed under Section 5(2) of the Act has already ordered to be re-considered. Hence, the petitioners herein are also relegated to the proceedings before the Special Court for seeking proper reliefs.
It is submitted that the proceedings before the Special Court are listed on 23.09.2026. Hence, the petitioners shall appear before the Special Court on 23.09.2026 without requirement of any further notice / intimation in that regard. The grievances as articulated by the petitioners shall also be adjudicated by the Special Court.
The writ petition is disposed of in the aforementioned terms.
All questions of the parties on merits of the mater are kept open to be decided by the Special Court.