Disposed¶42

Mr Mohammed Ibrahim v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Jun 2025WP/16484/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Alternative remedy / relegation to statutory appeal: Karnataka HC (single judge, S Sunil Dutt Yadav) disposed of writ petition under Art. 226/227 challenging order dated 24/05/2022 in Misc. No. 239/2022 (attachment made absolute) by XCI Addl City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru; petitioner relegated to appeal under S.16 Karnataka Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act, 2004; interim order continued 4 weeks; contentions kept open; S.14 Limitation Act, 1963 benefit noted as open.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of; petitioner relegated to the appellate remedy under Section 16 of the Act; interim order continued for four weeks to enable the challenge; original/certified copy, if any, to be returned to the petitioner. ¶42

Mr Mohammed Ibrahim Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶42

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition challenging the order in Misc. No. 239/2022 should be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction when an appellate remedy under Section 16 of the Act is available against orders of the Special Court. +1 more

¶34

Court's answer

Taking note of the availability of the substantive appellate remedy under Section 16 of the Act, the petitioner is relegated to avail of that substantive remedy rather than proceed by way of the writ petition.

¶35

Ratio / Principle

The interim order in operation is continued for a period of four weeks, within which the petitioner may take steps to challenge the impugned order through the substantive appeal provision under Section 16 of the Act, if so advised; all contentions of the petitioner are kept open.

¶35

Key takeaways

The benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 remains open to the petitioner to be sought before the appropriate forum, in response to the request that the time spent before this Court be taken note of.obiter¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (GM-RES) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by Mohammed Ibrahim seeking quashing of the order dated 24/05/2022 passed by the XCI Addl City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-92) in Misc. No. 239/2022, whereby attachment in respect of the petitioner's schedule property (Annexure-E) was made absolute. Respondents submitted that, against an order of the Special Court passed in terms of Section 16 of the Karnataka Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act, 2004, an appeal lies to the High Court and the writ route ought not short-circuit that substantive remedy. The Court, noting the availability of the substantive remedy under Section 16, relegated the petitioner to pursue the appeal under that provision, continued the interim order in operation for four weeks for the petitioner to institute the challenge, kept all contentions open, and observed that the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is open to be sought before the appropriate forum. Petition disposed of.

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:19031 WP No. 16484 of 2023

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 16484 OF 2023 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MR MOHAMMED IBRAHIM S/O LATE NANHE SAB AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/AT NO. 543, 11^th CROSS, NEAR GANESHA TEMPLE, MUKTHI NAGAR, HIDIYATH NAGAR K G HALLI, ARABIC COLLEGE POST, BENGALURU - 560 045

¶9

… PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. MAHADEVAIAH K.B., ADVOCATE)

¶11

Digitally signed by VIJAYA P Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001

¶14

THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY M/S AALA VENTURES LTD., DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (URBAN) BENGALURU, KANDAYA BHAVAN, BENGALURU - 560 009

¶15

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:19031 WP No. 16484 of 2023

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

M/S AALVA VENTRUES LTD., REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1955 HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO. 403 3^rd FLOOR, 5^th CROSS, 5^th MAIN, 1^st STAGE, 3^rd BLOCK, H B R LAYOUT, KALYAN NAGAR POST, BENGALURU - 560 043 REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN, MR. NADIM AHMED

¶18

MR. NADIM AHMED S/O LATE NISAR AHMED, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, NO. 403, 3^rd FLOOR, 5^th CROSS, 5^th MAIN, 1^ST STAGE, 3^rd BLOCK, H B R LAYOUT, KALYAN NAGAR POST, BENGLAURU - 560 043

¶19

MRS. FARZANA BEGUM W/O SYED MAHEBOOB, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NO. 46, 2^nd MAIN ROAD, GANDHINAGAR, K G HALLI, ARABIC COLLEGE POST, BENGALURU - 560 045

¶20

… RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. SHAMANTH NAIK, HCGP FOR R1; SRI VEERESH R. BUDIHAL, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶22

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:19031 WP No. 16484 of 2023

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 24/05/2022 PASSED BY THE XCI ADDL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH92) IN MISC NO. 239/2022, ATTACHMENT MADE ABSOLUTE IN RESPECT OF PETITIONER SCHEDULE PROPERTY AT ANNEXUREE, IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONERS ARE CONCERN AND ETC.

¶25

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

In this petition, petitioner has called in question the validity of order passed in Misc. No. 239/2022.

¶29

Learned counsel appearing for respondents

¶30

submit that as against the order passed by the Special Court in terms of Section 16 of the Karnataka Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act, 2004 (for short 'the Act') any person aggrieved by the order of the Special Court may appeal to the High Court. Accordingly, it is submitted that the matter that requires adjudication as per the appellate remedy available ought

¶31

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:19031 WP No. 16484 of 2023

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

not to be short-circuited by bypassing the substantive remedy available by resorting to writ jurisdiction.

¶35

Taking note of the availability of substantive remedy under Section 16 of the Act, it would be appropriate to relegate the petitioner to avail of the substantive remedy. The interim order in operation would continue to operate for a period of 4 weeks from today, within which the petitioner to take necessary steps to challenge the impugned order, if so advised, by resorting to the substantive appeal provision, i.e., Section 16 of the Act as is permissible in law. All contentions of the petitioner are kept open.

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶37

the time spent before this Court may be directed to be taken note of.

¶38

Needless to state that the benefit under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, is always open for the petitioner to be sought before the appropriate forum.

¶39

¶40

NC: 2025:KHC:19031 WP No. 16484 of 2023

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42