Sri K.C. Nagaraj Vs the State of Karnataka

SRI K.C. NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, S/O. LATE SRI CHIKKEGOWDA, RESIDING AT O. B9/53, BDA MIG FLATS, II STAGE, II PHASE, DOMLUR, BENGALURU - 560 071.

¶11

Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

SMT. SHANTHA NAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, W/O. SRI NAGARAJ K.C BENGALURU - 560 071. RESIDING AT NO. B9/53, BDA MIG FLATS, II STAGE, II PHASE, DOMLUR, BENGALURU - 560 071.

¶13

MS. JANANI SMITHA NAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, D/O. SRI NAGARAJ K. C. RESIDING AT NO. B9/53, BDA MIG FLATS, II STAGE, II PHASE, DOMLUR, BENGALURU - 560 071,

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI. B N JAYADEVA.,ADVOCATE)

¶16

2 -

¶17

NC: 2026:KHC:20992 WP No. 5314 of 2023

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

AND:

¶20

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT, (SPECIAL CELL) KARNATAKA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶21

THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY OF VIKRAM INVESTMENTS 3^RD FLOOR, MINI V. V. TOWER PODIUM BLOCK, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE - 560 001. REPRESENTED BY MR. HARSH GUPTA

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI.MAHANTESH SHETTAR., AGA FOR R1; SRI.VEERESH R BUDIHAL., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTIFICATION DATED 07/02/2019 BEARING NO. RD 06 GRC 2018 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA THE R-1 HEARING AT ANNEXURE-A IN SO FAR IT RELATES TO THE PROPERTIES OF THE PETITIONERS APPEARING IN ANNEXURE-1 THERETO LISTED HEREIN BELOW AND ETC.,

¶25

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

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶27

3 -

¶28

NC: 2026:KHC:20992 WP No. 5314 of 2023

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

The present writ petition is filed seeking the following

¶32

prayer:

¶33

"WHEREFORE, the petitioners pray that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:

¶34

a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ order or direction quashing the notification dated 07-02-2019 bearing No.RD 06 GRC 2018. Issued by the Government of Karnataka the first respondent hearing at Annexure - A in so far it relates to the properties of the Petitioners appearing in Annexure 1 thereto, listed herein below:

¶35

i) Bank Accounts detailed in List-I at Items No.1, 2 & 7 shown against the name of Sri K.C.Nagaraj as Accused No.4 who is the First Petitioner,

¶36

ii) Bank accounts detailed in List-I at Items No.3 4 & 5 shown against the name of Sri K.C.Nagaraj as Accused No.4 who is the First Petitioner herein and others,

¶37

iii) Bank Account detailed in List-I at Item No.4 shown against the name of Smt.Shantha the Second Petitioner herein and others,

¶38

iv) Bank Accounts detailed in List-I at Items No.8 & 9 shown against the name of Smt.Shantha Nagaraj the Second Petitioner herein,

¶39

v) Immovable Properties detailed in List-II at Items No.2 & 3 against the name of Sri K.C.Nagaraj the First Petitioner herein,

¶40

vi) Immovable Properties detailed in List- II at Item No.1 against the name of Sri K.C.Nagaraj the First Petitioner herein and in the name of Sri Kum.Janani Smitha the daughter of the First and Second Petitioner.

¶41

b) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction and quash all proceedings. Misc.Case No.250/2022 on the file of the Hon'ble XCI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge (KPIDFC cases) Bangalore, (CCH-92), vide Annexure 'E' in so far it relates to properties of the Petitioners which are listed in prayer para a above,

¶42

c) Allow this Writ petition with costs,

¶43

d) Grant such other reliefs as deemed just in the circumstances in the ends of justice and equity."

¶44

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:20992 WP No. 5314 of 2023

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

It is the case of the petitioners that crime is registered

¶47

against Vikram Investments in which the petitioner No.1 has been arrayed as accused No.3. Though the FIR was registered way back in the year 2018, there was no investigation conducted by the jurisdictional Police authority and the matter is still pending before the concerned Magistrate. It is the case that there are no allegations whatsoever against petitioner No.1 in the complaint. In spite of the same, the respondents proceeded to pass final order of attachment during the pendency of the proceedings. It is the case that respondent No.2 in the petition filed before the Court has admitted that the petitioners therein are the one and only investors who invested in Vikram Investments and without any application of mind, arbitrarily passed an order attaching the properties of petitioner No.1 and irrationally attached the properties of petitioner Nos.2 and 3, who are the family members of petitioner No.1 and the petitioner No.2 established the arbitrariness of the actions of the respondents.

¶48

It is stated that the scheme of the Act provides for attachment of properties belonging to the financial institution either in its own name or in the name of any other person. The

¶49

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:20992 WP No. 5314 of 2023

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

respondents have failed to even value the assets and liabilities and the entire procedure is undertaken by the respondents. It is submitted that after the writ petition is filed and after the interim order is granted by the Court, the proceedings before the Special Court are closed with a liberty to respondent No.2 to initiate fresh proceedings after the writ petition is disposed of by this Court. It is submitted that as the respondents have failed to follow the procedure, that made the petitioners to come before this Court by filing the instant writ petition.

¶52

Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 submits that the proceedings against the petitioners were closed giving liberty to respondent No.2 to initiate the fresh proceedings once the writ petition is disposed of. It is submitted that under the Act, when an order is passed in the miscellaneous petition, the remedy available to the petitioners is to file an appeal against that and they cannot come before this Court assailing the said order. It is submitted that when the statute provides an alternative remedy to the petitioners, they cannot file a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that as the proceedings are closed, the respondent No.2 will again initiate fresh

¶53

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:20992 WP No. 5314 of 2023

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

proceedings under Section 5(2) of the Karnataka Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishment Act, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act').

¶56

Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the entire material on record. The petitioner has filed this writ petition to quash all proceedings in Misc.Case No.250/2022 on the grounds as discussed in the preceding paragraph. Considering the fact that the writ petition is pending, as far as petitioners are concerned, Misc.Case No.250/2022 is closed. It is submitted by the learned counsel for respondent No.2 that they will initiate the proceedings under Section 5(2) of the Act, as per the liberty given to them by the Court, once this writ petition is disposed of.

¶57

In the considered opinion of this Court, in the matters of this nature, remedy lies before the Special Court, but not before this Court and if any order is passed by the Special Court, that can be questioned by filing an appeal and they cannot come before this Court by filing a writ petition as all these disputed questions of facts cannot be decided by this Court in a writ petition filed under Article 227 of the

¶58

7 -

¶59

NC: 2026:KHC:20992 WP No. 5314 of 2023

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

Constitution of India. In the light of the fact that in Misc.Case No.250/2022, liberty was given to respondent No.2 to file a fresh petition after disposal of the writ petition, this Court is passing the following:

¶62

ORDER

¶63

i. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to respondent No.2 to proceed in accordance with law and the petitioners are at liberty to avail the remedy available under the Act.

¶64

ii. All contentions are left open.

¶65

iii. This Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter.

¶66

iv. All I.As. in this petition shall stand closed.

¶67

SD/(LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE

¶68

MEG

¶69

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50

Sri K.C. Nagaraj v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri K.C. Nagaraj v. the State of Karnataka

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

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited Vs Smt. Neetha Krishnamurthy

M/S Opto Circuit India Limited Vs Central Bureau of Investigation

Rangaswamy Vs Anjanna Murthy

Daasta Hotels and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Hotel Industrialists Co. Operative Bank Ltd.

M/S Associate Lumbers Private Limited Vs Reserve Bank of India

Sri. B.Y. Santosh Raj Urs Vs the Assistant Commissioner