Dismissed¶38

M/S Aala Ventures Ltd. v. Principal Secretary Revenue Department

Karnataka HC18 Mar 2026WP/23211/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition dismissed for non-prosecution; Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru; single judge (Lalitha Kanneganti, J.); Article 227 Constitution of India; section 5(2) Karnataka Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act, 2004 (KPIDFE Act); quashment of order dated 25/11/2022 in Misc.No. 27/2022 (CCH-92); challenge to Government attachment notification No. RD-28-GRC-2019 dated 18.11.2019; Aala Ventures Ltd.; default dismissal for want of prosecution; non-compliance of office objections; no representation by petitioner; no notice issued to respondents; no merits decided; no case law cited.

What did the court decide?

There was no representation on behalf of the petitioner even on the day of the order, and the Court recorded that the petitioner appeared not interested in pursuing the matter. ¶34

M/S Aala Ventures Ltd. Vs Principal Secretary… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶38

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 25/11/2022 in Misc.No. 27/2022 passed by the XCI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge / Special Judge for KPIDFE Cases, Bengaluru (allowing the Authority's petition under section 5(2) of the Karnataka Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act, 2004), and the Government attachment notification dated 18.11.2019, were liable to be quashed. (Pleaded in the prayers; never adjudicated, as the petition was dismissed for non-prosecution.)

¶25

Ratio / Principle

There was no representation on behalf of the petitioner even on the day of the order, and the Court recorded that the petitioner appeared not interested in pursuing the matter.

¶34

Key takeaways

The writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution (the words 'non-prosecution.' continue in paragraph 39). No relief was granted and the merits of the challenge were not adjudicated.ratio¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (Hon'ble Smt. Justice Lalitha Kanneganti), Oral Order dated 18.03.2026 in W.P. No. 23211 of 2023 (GM-RES) — M/s. Aala Ventures Ltd. v. Principal Secretary, Revenue Department & The Competent Authority for Aala Ventures Ltd. The petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, sought certiorari to quash (i) the order dated 25/11/2022 in Misc.No. 27/2022 of the XCI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for KPIDFE Cases, Bengaluru (CCH-92), allowing the Authority's petition under section 5(2) of the Karnataka Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act, 2004, and (ii) the Government's interim attachment notification No. RD-28-GRC-2019 Bengaluru dated 18.11.2019, and further sought directions to furnish claim details. Though instituted in 2023, no notice had been issued to the respondents; office objections were never complied with despite listings on 29.10.2025 and 13.03.2026, and there was no representation for the petitioner. Holding: the writ petition was DISMISSED FOR NON-PROSECUTION. The merits of the KPIDFE challenge and the attachment were not adjudicated; no precedent was cited or considered.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:16082 WP No. 23211 of 2023

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 23211 OF 2023 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

M/S. AALA VENTURES LTD., HAVIN ITS HEAD OFFICE AT NO. 403, 3RD FLOOR 5TH CROSS, 5TH MAIN, 1ST STAGE, 3RD BLOCK, HBR LAYOUT KALYAN NAGAR P.O, BANGALORE - 560 043 REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN NAJMU HUSSAIN, AGED 45 YEARS.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. SRIVASTHAVA H.K, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S. BUILDING, VIDHANA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶14

THE COMPTENT AUTHORITY FOR AAALA VENTURES LTD.,

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD 25/11/2022 IN MISC.NO. 27/2022 PASSED BY THE XCI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE FOR KPIDFE CASES, BENGALURU (CCH-92) WHEREBY THE

¶17

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:16082 WP No. 23211 of 2023

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

PETITION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITY HEREIN UNDER SEC 5(2) OF THE KARNATAKA PROTECTION OF INTEREST OF DEPOSITORS IN FINANCIAL ESTABLISHMENTS ACT, 2004 CAME TO BE ALLOWED AND ETC.,

¶20

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

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

The present writ petition is filed seeking the following

¶24

prayers:

¶25

"I. Issue Writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 25/11/2022 in Misc No. 27/2022, passed by the XCI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, and Special Judge for KPIDFE Cases, Bengaluru (CCH-92), whereby the Petition filed by the Respondent Authority herein under section 5(2) of the Karnataka Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act, 2004 came to be allowed.

¶26

II. Issue Writ of Certiorari quashing the interim order of attachment passed by the Government vide notification

¶27

¶28

NC: 2026:KHC:16082 WP No. 23211 of 2023

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

bearing No. RD-28-GRC-2019 Bengaluru dated 18.11.2019,

¶31

III. Direct the Respondent Competent Authority to furnish all claim details to the Petitioner based on which attachment order is issued. IV. Cost and such other reliefs, this honourable court deems fit under the facts and circumstances of this case."

¶32

The writ petition is of the year 2023. Even till date,

¶33

no notice has been issued to the respondents. The matter first time came up in the year 2025 for non-compliance of office objections. Thereafter, when the matter was listed on 29.10.2025, the office objections were still not complied with. Subsequently, on 13.03.2026, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner and the office objections were still not complied with. Hence, this Court directed that the matter to be listed under the caption for dismissal.

¶34