Shaik Shahabauddin Vs the Competent Authority — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

Shaik Shahabauddin Vs the Competent Authority — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition disposed of: petitioner given one week to deposit Rs.97,000/- or any further sum as is due; on acceptance by the respondent the attachment order shall stand dissolved with no further proceedings; failing deposit, petitioner to avail remedy under Section 16 of the KPIDFE Act.

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order of the Special Court in Mis.No.445/2024 condoning the delay, confirming the initial attachment order and directing sale of the property is liable to be quashed. +1 more

Court's answer

The petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to offer/deposit Rs.97,000/- or any further sum as is due, within a week from the date of the order, calling upon the respondent to accept such deposit on terms.

Ratio / Principle

If the petitioner offers the amount due and the respondent accepts it, the attachment order shall stand dissolved and there shall be no further proceedings.

Key takeaways

If the petitioner cannot deposit the amount due for any reason, he must avail his remedy under Section 16 of the KPIDFE Act.ratio¶35

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (GM-RES) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - petitioner challenged the order of the Special Court under the Karnataka Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act, 2004 in Mis.No.445/2024, whereby delay was condoned, the initial attachment order over his property was confirmed and sale was directed, on the ground that the outstanding due to Ahana Souharda Credit Co-operative Society Ltd. was small. Held: the Court, recording the petitioner's categorical undertaking to deposit the outstanding of Rs.97,000/- (or any further sum as is due, per the respondent's range of Rs.97,000/- to Rs.98,000/-) within a week, disposed of the petition directing that upon such deposit being offered and accepted by the respondent, the attachment order shall stand dissolved with no further proceedings; if the petitioner cannot deposit the amount due for any reason, he must avail his remedy under Section 16 of the KPIDFE Act.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:31127 WP No. 4254 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

WRIT PETITION NO.4254 OF 2025 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

SHAIK SHAHABAUDDIN S/O. SHAIK MEERAVALLI AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 31^ST WARD, 1^ST CROSS NC COLONY, HOSPETE TALUK VIJAYANAGAR DISTRICT-583201.

&PETITIONER

(BY SRI. SYED JAFFER MOHIYUDDIN, ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: High Court of Karnataka

THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY FOR AHANA SOUHARDA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD, 3^RD FLOOR, MINI-V.V.TOWER PODIUM BLOCK, DR.AMBEDKAR VIDHI BENGALURU- 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMPETENT AUTHORITY SRI. SUDHARSHAN B.K., ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

&RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. VEERESH BUDIHAL, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 12.09.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED XCI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:31127 WP No. 4254 of 2025

HC-KAR

SESSSIONS JUDGE (CH92), PRODUCED AT ANNEXUREC AND ETC.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 12.09.2025 in Mis.No.445/2024 [ Annexure-C ] by the Special Court under the provisions of the Karnataka Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act, 2004 [for short, ' the KPIDFE Act ']. The Special Court, by this order, has condoned the delay allowing the application filed by the respondent and confirmed the initial attachment order with a direction to sell the property.

Sri Syed Jafar Mohiyuddin, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that this Court may grant indulgence to the petitioner because the outstanding, even according to the respondent, is only in a sum of

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:31127 WP No. 4254 of 2025

HC-KAR

Rs.70,000/-. Sri Veeresh Budhihal, the learned counsel for the respondent, submits that his instructions are that the due will be in a sum between Rs.97,000/- and Rs.98,000/-, and if this amount is indeed offered bonafide , precipitous action may not be. The learned counsel also emphasizes that if the petitioner has any grievance with the impugned order, he must necessarily avail remedy under Section 68 of the KPIDFE Act.

These circumstances are considered. With Sri.Syed Jaffer Mohiyuddin stating categorically that even if the outstanding is in a sum between Rs.97,000/- and Rs.98,000/- and that the same will be offered to achieve quietus within a week from today, this Court is of the view that the petition must be disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to offer Rs.97,000/- or any further sum as is due, within a week from today calling upon the respondent to accept such deposit on terms. This would prevent

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:31127 WP No. 4254 of 2025

HC-KAR

protracted proceedings. As such, this Court concludes that if the petitioner offers the amount due and accepted by the respondent, the attachment order shall stand dissolved, and consequently there shall be no further proceedings. However, if the petitioner cannot deposit the amount due for any reason, he must avail his remedy under Section 16 of the KPIDFE Act.

The petition stands disposed of accordingly.

SD/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

SA ct:sr