Disposed

Manappuram Finance Ltd., v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC9 Feb 2024WP/4079/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought to quash a notice for production of gold articles. The court directed the police to adhere to guidelines in a prior judgment preventing unauthorized seizure of gold articles and disposed of the petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of with directions to the petitioner to cooperate and the respondent police to follow court guidelines.

Manappuram Finance Ltd., Vs the State of Karnataka — Execution and Attachment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:5717 WP No. 4079 of 2024

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 4079 OF 2024 (GM-POLICE)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MANAPPURAM FINANCE LTD., A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956 HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT MANAPURAM HOUSE, A.O VALAPAD, TRISSUR DISTRICT KERALA - 680 567 HAVING ONE OF ITS BRANCH AT NO 10, 10^TH CROSS, ANNEPPA CIRCLE VARANASI MAIN ROAD AKSHAY NAGAR BANGALORE, KARNATAKA - 560016 REP BY AUTHORISED SIGNATORY AND LEGAL OFFICER MR RAJKUMAR B R

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

Digitally signed by ALBHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

(BY SRI. K.R.POORNA PRASAD, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU – 560001

¶14

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE BANGALORE CITY BENGALURU – 560001

¶15

¶16

NC: 2024:KHC:5717 WP No. 4079 of 2024

¶17

THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE COTTONPET POLICE STATION 149, COTTONPET MAIN RD, SUBHASH NAGAR COTTONPETE, BENGALURU KARNATAKA - 560053

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI.M.R.PATIL, HCGP)

¶20

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO a) QUASH THE NOTICE U/S 91 AND 102 OF CR.P.C. DATED 31/01/2024 ADDRESSED TO THE MANAGER, MANAPPURAM FINANCE LIMITED, THE PETITIONER HEREIN BY THE R3, FURNISHED AS ANNEXURE-E DTD 31/01/2024 AND ETC.,

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Learned HCGP is directed to take notice for

¶24

respondent.

¶25

The captioned petition is filed assailing the

¶26

Notice issued by respondent No.3 calling upon the petitioner to produce the gold articles for investigation.

¶27

The learned counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on the judgment rendered by the Co-Ordinate Bench in an identical case would contend that the Investigating Officer can only direct for production of gold

¶28

¶29

NC: 2024:KHC:5717 WP No. 4079 of 2024

¶30

article for investigation and he has no authority to seize the gold articles.

¶31

On perusal of the impugned endorsement, it is clearly evident that the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation has called upon the petitioner for production of gold articles. However, petitioner’s apprehension is that the Investigating Officer is orally insisting that he would seize the gold articles, which would run contrary to the dictum laid down by this Court in an unreported judgment in the case of Manappuram Asset Finance Limited .vs. The State of Karnataka and others [ W.P.No.10754/2023 disposed of on 6.6.2023].

¶32

Learned HCGP supporting the notice would point out that the notice issued by respondent No.3 is strictly in consonance with the guidelines issued by this Court in the judgment cited supra.

¶33

The petitioner shall co-operate pursuant to the endorsement issued by respondent No.3. Respondent

¶34

¶35

NC: 2024:KHC:5717 WP No. 4079 of 2024

¶36

No.3 is also directed to take cognizance of the judgment rendered by this Court in W.P.10574/2023 and shall follow

¶37

the guidelines while investigating the case on hand.

¶38

Accordingly, the * writ petition is disposed of.

¶39

Sd/JUDGE

¶40

ALB List No.: 4 Sl No.: 1

¶41

Corrected vide chamber order dated 26.3.2024

Manappuram Finance Ltd., v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manappuram Finance Ltd., v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Umesh N Patil Vs Anticorruption Bureau

Smt Priyanka Angur Vs State of Karnataka

Shivanna Vs State of Karnataka

H N Premkumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.Sanjeeva Naidu Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Antoni D Cunha @ Danny Vs the State of Karnataka