Mr Edagotti Venkatesh v. Employee State Insurance Corporation

Karnataka HC2 Jul 2025WP/7314/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC (S Sunil Dutt Yadav J, 02.07.2025), WP No. 7314 of 2025 (GM-RES): Garnishee Order dated 06.02.2025 of ESIC Recovery Officer set aside where it concerned M/s Maxworth Reality India Ltd. and not the petitioner-proprietorship M/s Maxworth Realty Ventures; bank's implementation already revoked per memo dated 18.06.2025; liberty to bank to recover dues from the appropriate entity; certiorari under Articles 226 and 227.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with the Garnishee Order dated 06.02.2025 (Annexure-A) set aside, and liberty reserved to respondent No.2 to take appropriate steps against the appropriate entity for its dues and not against the petitioner. ¶¶40

Mr Edagotti Venkatesh Vs Employee State Insurance… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶40

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of certiorari should issue to set aside the Garnishee Order at Annexure-'A' dated 06.02.2025, given the petitioner's assertion that the order pertains to M/s.Maxworth Reality India Ltd. (PAN Nos. AAFCM4908F and AOQPK0896L), an entity with which he has no direct or indirect relationship, and not to his proprietorship M/s. Maxworth Realty Ventures.

¶¶28

Court's answer

As the petitioner's assertion that the Garnishee Order relates to M/s.Maxworth Reality India Ltd., with which he has no direct or indirect relationship, was not controverted by respondent No.2, the Garnishee Order at Annexure-'A' dated 06.02.2025 is set aside.

¶¶39

Ratio / Principle

Liberty is reserved to respondent No.2 to take appropriate steps against the appropriate entity for its dues and not against the petitioner.

¶¶39

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution seeking certiorari to quash a Garnishee Order dated 06.02.2025 (No. KAR.CP/53000294800001099) issued by the ESIC Recovery Officer (R-1), operating on an account with HDFC Bank, Race Course Road Branch (A/c. 50200050973521). The petitioner, proprietor of M/s. Maxworth Realty Ventures, asserted that the order actually concerned M/s.Maxworth Reality India Ltd. (PAN Nos. AAFCM4908F and AOQPK0896L), an entity with which he had no direct or indirect relationship. Respondent No.2 did not controvert this assertion, its counsel having filed a memo with a bank document dated 18.06.2025 stating that implementation of the Garnishee Order stood revoked. The Court set aside the Garnishee Order, reserving liberty to respondent No.2 to take appropriate steps against the appropriate entity for its dues and not against the petitioner, and disposed of the petition.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:23630 WP No. 7314 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 7314 OF 2025 (GM-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MR EDAGOTTI VENKATESH PROPRIETOR OF M/S MAXWORTH REALTY VENTURES SON OF SRI EDAGOTTI SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.101, NEXT TO SWAPNA APARTMENT SWATHANTHRA NAGAR MAIN ROAD AYYAPPANAGAR, KRISHNARAJAPURAM BANGALORE-560036.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. NISHAN G K., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by VIJAYA P Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

EMPLOYEE STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION OFFICE OF THE RECOVERY OFFICER, REGIONAL OFFICE, KARNATAKA, NO.10 BINNYFIELDS, BINNYPET,

¶15

BENGALURU-560023

¶16

REPRESENTED BY THE RECOVERY OFFICER.

¶17

HDFC BANK RACE COURSE ROAD BRANCH GROUND FLOOR, AHUJA CHAMBERS NO.1 KUMARAPARK ROAD, OPP. RACE COURSE BANGALORE-560001

¶18

REPRESENTED BY THE BANK BRANCH MANAGER.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. KUMAR M N., ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. PATIL J M, ADVOCATE FOR R2 (VK NOT FILED))

¶21

¶22

NC: 2025:KHC:23630 WP No. 7314 of 2025

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE GARNISHEE ORDER DTD 06.02.2025 BEARING NO. KAR.CP/53000294800001099 PASSED BY R-1 (ANNX-A).

¶25

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

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

The petitioner has sought for issuance of writ of certiorari to set aside the Garnishee Order at Annexure-'A' dated 06.02.2025.

¶29

It is the case of the petitioner that the

¶30

Garnishee Order issued is as regards M/s.Maxwroth Reality India Ltd., It is further submitted that the Bank Account with respect to Garnishee Order passed is 'HDFC Bank, Race Course Road Branch. A/c. 50200050973521.

¶31

It is specifically asserted that the entity M/s.Maxworth Reality India Ltd., bearing PAN

¶32

Nos.AAFCM4908F and AOQPK0896L is an entity with respect to which the petitioner has no direct or indirect

¶33

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC:23630 WP No. 7314 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

relationship. It is submitted that the petitioner is a Proprietorship entity, viz., M/s. Maxworth Realty Ventures.

¶37

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent

¶38

Bank has filed a memo alongwith copy of the document of the Bank dated 18.06.2025 and submits that the implementation of Garnishee Order was revoked.

¶39

In light of the assertion of petitioner as noticed, which has not been controverted by respondent No.2, the Garnishee Order at Annexure - 'A' dated 06.02.2025 is set aside, while reserving liberty to respondent No.2 to take appropriate steps against the appropriate entity for its dues and not against the petitioner.

¶40

Accordingly, the petition is disposed off.

¶41

Sd/(S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE

¶42

VGR

Mr Edagotti Venkatesh v. Employee State Insurance Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Edagotti Venkatesh v. Employee State Insurance Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mrs. Jayamma Yellappa Vs Central Bank of India

M/S Pavithra Public School Vs M/S Varthana Finance Private Limited

Smt Krishnamma Vs Karnataka Bank Limited

Fathima Hafeeza Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S My-Pb Industries Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Ramesh Babu. v Vs M/S State Bank of India