Disposed

Mrs Aneena George v. Mr Sunil Kumar Mehto

Karnataka HC5 Feb 2024WP/27030/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought to quash a garnishee order issued against her bank accounts under the ESI Act, claiming false identification. The Court declined to entertain the writ due to the availability of an efficacious alternative remedy under Section 75 of the Act but directed the petitioner to deposit 25% of the amount to seek a stay or release of funds.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of. Petitioner directed to deposit 25% of claimed amount before Competent Authority to seek release of seized funds; prays open for further contemplation.

Mrs Aneena George Vs Mr Sunil Kumar Mehto — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:4950 WP No. 27030 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.27030 OF 2023 (L-ESI)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MRS. ANEENA GEORGE W/O. KURIAN M. KURUVILLA, AGED 41 YEARS, R/O. A-701, AUGUST PARK APARTMENT, KAGGADASAPURA MAIN ROAD, C.V. RAMAN NAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 095. ... PETITIONER (BY SMT. KOUNAIN FATHIMA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI Z.N. HANSI, ADVOCATE)

¶8

AND:

¶9

MR. SUNIL KUMAR MEHTO RECOVERY OFFICER, EMPLOYEES’ STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION REGIONAL OFFICE, KARNATAKA, NO.10, BINNYFIELDS, BINNYPET, BENGALURU – 560 023.

¶10

Digitally signed by SHYAMALA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

EMPLOYEES’ STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION REGIONAL OFFICE, KARNATAKA, NO.10, BINNYFIELDS, BINNYPET, BENGALURU – 560 023.

¶12

REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER.

¶13

SOUTH INDIAN BANK, SENIOR MANAGER BANGALORE CORPORATE BRANCH, BRANCH MANAGER, NO.74, SUMERU TOWERS, NEAR ST. JOSEPH’S COLLEGE OF COMMERCE, BRIGADE ROAD,

¶14

BENGALURU – 560 025. ... RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI N.S. NARASIMHA SWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 & R-2; SRI NARAYANA SHENOY, ADVOCATE FOR R-3)

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:4950 WP No. 27030 of 2023

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED GARNISHEE ORDER DATED 24.11.2023 ISSUED PASSED BY THE 1^ST AND 2^ND RESPONDENT ESIC, BENGALURU, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-B TO THIS WRIT PETITION, THEREBY RESTORING THE AMOUNT OF RS.87,51,457.00 IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE PETITIONER, ALONG WITH LOSS OF INTEREST/PROFIT AT THE RATED OF 12% ON THE SEIZED AMOUNT, AND THE COST OF THIS WRIT PETITION OF RS.1,50,000.00, AND EXEMPLARY COST FOR ILLEGAL USE OF LAW AND AUTHORITY AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN TERMS OF MONETARY COMPENSATION.

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The petitioner-Aneena George is before this Court assailing the garnishee order issued by respondent Nos.1 and 2 at Annexure – B passed under Section 45G of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 (“ESI Act” for short) seeking the following prayers:

¶21

“(a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari and or any other writ or order and quash the impugned garnishee order dated 24.11.2023 issued / passed by the 1^st and 2^nd respondents ESIC, Bengaluru, produced at Annexure-B to this writ petition, thereby restoring the amount of Rs.87,51,457.00 in the accounts of the petitioner, along with loss of interest / profit at the rate of 12% on the seized amount, and the cost of this writ petition of Rs.1,50,000.00, and exemplary cost for illegal use of

¶22

¶23

NC: 2024:KHC:4950 WP No. 27030 of 2023

¶24

law and authority against the petitioner in terms of monetary compensation.

¶25

and/or

¶26

(b) or pass any other order this Hon’ble Court deems fit to pass in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶27

The grievance of the petitioner is that, the

¶28

petitioner is no way connected with either M/s. Mereena Creations, as stated in the garnishee order or with the ESI authorities. It is further submitted that the PAN No.AESPG3603H mentioned in the garnishee order and it is false that she is placed as a principal employer of M/s.Mereena Creations, bearing ESI registration No.KAR.CP/53000242920000109 as mentioned in the Garnishee order. The petitioner submits that there is no relationship with the said firm or ESI registration/account number whatsoever and the impugned garnishee order 24.11.2023 issued by respondent No.1 is illegal, unjust and one sided.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a memo along with the affidavit of the petitioner and the

¶30

¶31

NC: 2024:KHC:4950 WP No. 27030 of 2023

¶32

Managing Director of the Company stating that the petitioner undertakes to deposit 25% of the claim amount mentioned in the impugned order at Annexure – B and would submit that on such deposit, the remaining amount which has been recovered by the respondent to be released in favour of the petitioner.

¶33

The affidavits of the petitioner and the managing

¶34

partner of M/s. Mereena Creations is taken on record.

¶35

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent – authorities would submit that the present writ petition is not maintainable in light of an alternative efficacious remedy provided under Section 75 of the ESI Act and even if the contention is taken that no garnishee order can be issued against the petitioner, such contention can be raised before the ESI Court where an alternative remedy is provided. Learned counsel would submit that the other Managing Directors have already approached the ESI Court and the matter is pending consideration.

¶36

¶37

NC: 2024:KHC:4950 WP No. 27030 of 2023

¶38

There is sufficient force in the submission made

¶39

by the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶40

In light of the efficacious alternative remedy available, this Court declines to entertain the petition, reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent authority, however, in light of the affidavit by the petitioner that 25% of the claimed amount to the extent of Rs.21,87,864.25 would be deposited before the ESI Court, this Court deems it appropriate to observe that in the event 25% of the claimed amount is deposited, before the Competent Authority, the Authority to consider the application for stay and also for release of the seized amount in favour of the petitioner by issuing necessary direction to the ESI Authorities in accordance with law.

¶41

All contention of the parties are kept open.

¶42

With the above observations, the petition stands

¶43

disposed of.

¶44

Sd/JUDGE

¶45

Mrs Aneena George v. Mr Sunil Kumar Mehto

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs Aneena George v. Mr Sunil Kumar Mehto

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

M/S Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Limited Vs Regional Pf Commissioner -Ii

K Nagaraj Vs the Chairman

The Management of Vs Sri. Mahesh Gowda

Sri Eshwarappa B Vs the Divisional Controller

Sri M Veerabhadrappa Vs the Managing Director

The Management of Institute Vs K.Nagabhusan