Dismissed

Sri M B Vikram v. Deputy Director

Karnataka HC6 Feb 2021WA/107/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ appeal, relegating the appellant to the Appellate Tribunal for interim relief. Pending the Tribunal's disposal, the respondent was restrained from taking precipitative action under the impugned notice dated 07.06.2018.

What did the court decide?

The respondent is restrained from taking any precipitative action pursuant to the impugned notice pending disposal of the appellant's application before the Appellate Tribunal.

Sri M B Vikram Vs Deputy Director — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B. V. NAGARATHNA

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE M. G. UMA

¶7

WRIT APPEAL NO.107/2021 (GM-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI M.B.VIKRAM AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, S/O T.BASAVARAJU, NO.21, CEIS (ENGINEERING) LAYOUT, 2^ND STAGE, 4^TH CROSS, BOGADI, MYSORE-570 026.

¶10

... APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI ANIYAN JOSEPH, ADVOCATE THROUGH PHYSICAL APPEARANCE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

DEPUTY DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, 3^RD FLOOR, “B” BLOCK, BMTC BUILDING, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 027.

¶14

... RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI MADHUKAR DESHPANDE, CGSG FOR C/R THROUGH PHYSICAL APPEARANCE)

¶16

¶17

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 11.12.2020 PASSED IN W.P.NO.28027/2018 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW W.P.NO.28027/2018 AS PRAYED FOR.

¶18

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, NAGARATHNA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

Though, this appeal is listed for non-removal of office objections, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that owing to urgency in the matter, a memo was moved for listing the case before the Court.

¶21

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted

¶22

that this appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 11.12.2020 passed in W.P.No.28027/2018, by which, the writ petition has

¶23

been dismissed. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that since there is urgency in the matter, the appeal was moved and hence, it is listed

¶24

¶25

before this Court. Further, pending removal of office objections, protective orders may be passed.

¶26

Learned counsel for the caveator respondent,

¶27

however, objected to any order of stay being granted. Insofar as the notice dated 07.06.2018 assailed in the writ petition is concerned, the appellant herein is also pursuing his remedy before the Appellate Tribunal and the appellant cannot pursue dual remedies, one, before the Appellate Tribunal and another, before this Court. Learned counsel for the caveator respondent submitted that the appellant may be relegated to the Appellate Tribunal so as to seek any interim /protective orders from the said Tribunal and the appeal may be disposed of reserving liberty to the appellant to seek such interim order before the Tribunal.

¶28

¶29

By way of response, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Appellate Tribunal has not been sitting regularly owing to Covid-19 pandemic and the next date slated before the Tribunal is 11.02.2021 and the application has been filed in the appeal i.e., MPPMLA-4962/BNG/2018 (Stay) in FPA-PMLA-1295/BNG/2016 by the appellant herein seeking interim /protective orders and until the said application is considered and disposed of, no precipitative action may be initiated as against the notice dated 07.06.2018 (Annexure-E) to the writ petition.

¶30

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted

¶31

that the impugned notice has been issued during the pendency of the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal and if the same is given effect to, the very purpose of filing an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal would be rendered infructuous. He, therefore, submitted that pending disposal of appellant’s application before the

¶32

¶33

Appellate Tribunal, no precipitative action may be taken against the appellant pursuant to the impugned orders as well as the notice dated 07.06.2018.

¶34

In the circumstances, we deem it appropriate

¶35

to dispose of this appeal by relegating appellant to the Appellate Tribunal reserving liberty to him to press for interim /protective orders pending disposal of the appeal by the Appellate Tribunal. It is noted that the next date of hearing by the Appellate Tribunal is 11.02.2021. On the said date or any subsequent date, the Appellate Tribunal may consider the interim application of the appellant as well as the main matter.

¶36

Pending disposal of the appeal filed by the appellant herein before the Appellate Tribunal, the respondent shall not take any precipitative action pursuant to the impugned order as well as the notice dated 07.06.2018.

¶37

¶38

8. It is further clarified that all contentions

¶39

raised in the writ petition as well as in this appeal are left open to be urged by the appellant as well as the respondent before the Appellate Tribunal.

¶40

Despite disposal of this appeal, the

¶41

appellant’s counsel to remove office objection Nos.1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 22, 24.

¶42

Office objection No.19 is complied. Removal of other office objections is waived.

¶43

Sd/JUDGE

¶44

Sd/JUDGE

¶45

Sri M B Vikram v. Deputy Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri M B Vikram v. Deputy Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Prahlad Sirsi Vs Smt N S Nagalakshmi

Mr. Dinker M Pai Vs Mrs.Laxmi Shenoy

Smt. Vedashree @ Shilpa Vs Sri B G Deepak Kumar

Sri. Jayashankara Vs Smt. Lavanya

Sri T Basavraju Vs Assistant Director

Mr. Justin Samson Vs Mrs. Anitha Krupa