Dismissed¶47

Mr Mahammad Ashraf K v. M/S Shri Saraswathi Credit Souharda Sahakari Ltd.

Karnataka HC16 Jun 2026WP/25395/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Alternative remedy; Section 46 Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997; recovery proceedings by co-operative society; salary attachment; award dated 31.03.2023; Annexure-E order dated 15.05.2024; Collection Officer (N-441); writ petition dismissed; Section 14 Limitation Act, 1963 benefit; interim stay continued four weeks; WP No. 25395 of 2024 (CS-RES); M.I. Arun J.; High Court of Karnataka.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; writ petition dismissed with liberty to approach the appropriate authority (appeal under Section 46 of the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997); interim order of 19.09.2024 continued for four weeks; benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 granted if an appeal is filed. ¶47

Mr Mahammad Ashraf K Vs M/S Shri Saraswathi… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶47

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition challenging the recovery proceedings pursuant to Annexure-E dated 15.05.2024 should be entertained when the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy under Section 46 of the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997.

¶42

Court's answer

The petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy under Section 46 of the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997; the writ petition is dismissed reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority in the manner known to law.

¶42

Ratio / Principle

The interim order granted on 19.09.2024 shall continue to be in force for a further period of four weeks from the date of this order.

¶47

Key takeaways

If the petitioner files an appeal, he shall be entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.ratio¶48
No opinion is expressed on the merits of the case; if an appeal is filed, the Appellate Authority shall decide the matter on the basis of the pleadings and evidence let in before it.obiter¶49

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India challenging recovery proceedings initiated by a credit souharda sahakari society pursuant to an order dated 15.05.2024 (Annexure-E) of the Collection Officer (N-441)/Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, following an award dated 31.03.2023 and attachment of the petitioner's salary — DISMISSED. Held: the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy under Section 46 of the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997; liberty reserved to approach the appropriate authority; the interim stay granted on 19.09.2024 continued for a further period of four weeks; petitioner entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 if an appeal is filed; no opinion expressed on the merits.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:29233 WP No. 25395 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO.25395 OF 2024 (CS-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MR. MAHAMMAD ASHRAF K. S/O. ABDULLA BIARY, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT NO.1-74B, PARTHIPPADDY HOUSE, VITTAL PADNUR VILLAGE, KODANGAL, DAKSHINA KANNADA-574 243.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SMT. KAVITHA D., ADVOCATE)

¶11

Digitally signed by V MANJUSHA BAI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

AND:

¶13

M/S. SHRI SARASWATHI CREDIT SOUHARDA SAHAKARI LTD (REGISTERED UNDER KARNATAKA STATE SOUHARDA SAHAKARI ACT, 1997), ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, FIRST FLOOR, RADHIKA PLAZA (MANGALAMRUTHA SOUDHA), M.S. ROAD, PUTTUR, DAKSHINA KANNADA-574 201, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER/GENERAL MANAGER MR. VASANTHA NAYAK A.

¶14

¶15

NC: 2026:KHC:29233 WP No. 25395 of 2024

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

MR. ABDUL KHADAR S/O. IBRAHIM BEARY, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT H.NO.1-69, PARTHIPPADDY HOUSE, VITTAL PADNUR VILLAGE, KODANGAL POST, BANTWAL TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA-574 243.

¶18

MRS. NASEEMA W/O. ABDUL KHADAR, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT H.NO.1-69, PARTHIPPADDY HOUSE, VITTAL PADNUR VILLAGE, KODANGAL POST, BANTWAL TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA-574 243.

¶19

MRS. AISAMMA W/O. IBRAHIM BEARY, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT H.NO.4-82, PERAPADPU HOUSE, KOLNADU VILLAGE AND POST, BANTWAL TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA-574 323.

¶20

MRS. ISMALI K S/O. ABBOKKARE, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT H.NO.1-75, PARTHIPPADDY HOUSE, VITTAL PADNUR VILLAGE, KODANGAL POST, BANTWAL TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA-574 243.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SMT. SHRIDEVI BHOSALE, ADVOCATE FOR R.1; R.2, R.3 AND R.5 ARE SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED;

¶23

SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R.4 IS HELD SUFFICIENT VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 20.11.2024.)

¶24

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:29233 WP No. 25395 of 2024

¶25

HC-KAR

¶26

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 15.05.2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-E PASSED BY THE LEARNED COLLECTION OFFICER (N-441) AND ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES K.R.S.S.N., BENGALURU, STATING THAT THE ENTIRE RECOVERY PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK AGAINST THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY ARE ILLEGAL AND IN VIOLATION OF THE KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1997, ETC.

¶27

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

The petitioner has challenged the recovery proceedings initiated for the recovery of a loan advanced by respondent No.1. This Court on 19.09.2024, passed the following order:-

¶31

"Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record.

¶32

A week's time is granted to comply with the office-objections.

¶33

In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the Award dated 31.03.2023,

¶34

¶35

NC: 2026:KHC:29233 WP No. 25395 of 2024

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

in which, the petitioner was arrayed as respondent No.4 and pointed out that out of the award amount of Rs.7,51,302/together with interest, the petitioner has paid a total sum of Rs.6,60,000/- as on today, despite which, the respondents are proceeding further and have attached the salary of the petitioner and as such, the impugned order deserves to be quashed.

¶38

Submission is placed on record.

¶39

Issue emergent notice to respondents, returnable by 30.10.2024.

¶40

In the meanwhile, all further proceedings pursuant to Annexure-E dated 15.05.2024 are stayed till the next date of hearing insofar as the petitioner is concerned, subject to the petitioner depositing Rs.90,000/- with respondent No.1-Society on or before 29.10.2024.

¶41

Liberty is reserved in favour of respondents to seek vacation/modification of this order."

¶42

It is seen that the petitioner is having an alternative and efficacious remedy under Section 46 of the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997.

¶43

¶44

NC: 2026:KHC:29233 WP No. 25395 of 2024

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition stands

¶47

dismissed reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority in the manner known to law. However, the interim order granted on 19.09.2024 shall continue to be in force for a further period of four weeks from today.

¶48

The petitioner shall be entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, if he were to file an appeal.

¶49

It is hereby made clear that no opinion is expressed on the merits of the case and if an appeal were to be filed, the Appellate Authority shall decide the matter on the basis of the pleadings and the evidence let-in before it.

¶50

Sd/(M.I.ARUN) JUDGE

¶51

VMB

¶52

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42

Mr Mahammad Ashraf K v. M/S Shri Saraswathi Credit Souharda Sahakari Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Mahammad Ashraf K v. M/S Shri Saraswathi Credit Souharda Sahakari Ltd.

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

Sri Belli Prakash @ K S Prakash Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Jayashree P. Nayak Vs State of Karnataka

Mohammed Rizwan Vs Sri Mohammed Pasha

The President Vs Ms Akshatha Madappa

Harish Raj a Vs the Assistant Registrar of Co. Operative Societies

G. Sounder Rajan Vs the Karnataka Circle Postal (Credit Co. Op Ltd)