Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 22509 (KAR)

B. KISHORE KUMAR v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/10418/2025 · 2025-06-05

S Sunil Dutt Yadav

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19027 WP No. 10418 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 10418 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. B. KISHORE KUMAR S/O B. JYOTHI PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT NO.8, I FLOOR, II MAIN, J.P.NAGAR III PHASE, BANGALORE - 560 078 2. B.J.KIRAN KUMAR S/O B. JYOTHI PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT NO 8, I FLOOR, II MAIN, J.P.NAGAR III PHASE, BANGALORE - 560 078 … PETITIONERS (BY SRI. VASANTH RAJ., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001 Digitally signed by VIJAYA P Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19027 WP No. 10418 of 2025 2. THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY FOR M/S SRI. VASISTA CREDIT SOUHARDHA CO-OPERATIVE LTD., OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL OFFICER AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY, IMA AND OTHER SCAM CASES, V.V.TOWERS, 3RD FLOOR, PODIUM BLOCK, BENGALURU-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMPETENT AUTHORITY, SRI. SUDARSHAN B.K. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, REPRESENTED BY LEARNED SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 3. M/S SRI. VASISTA CREDIT SOUHARDA CO-OPERATIVE LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER (C.E.O), VENKATANARAYANA K.V. AGED MAJOR, NO.01, FIRST FLOOR, RAMANJANEYA ROAD, HANUMANTHA NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 019 4. SRI.GIRISH KANDAKUR VISWANTH S/O K.V.VISWANATH, AGED MAJOR, RESIDING AT NO.1624/7, 5TH 'B' CROSS, 17TH MAIN, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19027 WP No. 10418 of 2025 BSK 1ST STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 050 5. M/S PIONEER DEVELOPERS REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, SMT.SUJATHA W/O V.RAGHAVENDRA, MAJOR, RESIDING AT NO.241/A, 15th CROSS, 2ND BLOCK, 3RD PHASE, BSK 3RD STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 085 6. SRI.V.RAGHAVENDRA S/O VASUDEVACHAR, MAJOR, RESIDING AT NO.241/A, 1ST CROSS, 2ND BLOCK, 3RD PHASE, BSK III STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 085 … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHAMANTH NAIK, HCGP FOR R1; SRI VEERESH R. BUDIHAL, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3) *** THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD. 27.02.2025 PASSED IN MISC NO. 1190/2024 ON THE FILE OF XCI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE BENGALURU (CCH-92) AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FRESH MATTERS LIST THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19027 WP No. 10418 of 2025 ORAL ORDER In this petition, petitioners have called in question the validity of order passed in Misc. No. 1190/2024. 2. Learned counsel appearing for respondents submit that as against the order passed by the Special Court in terms of Section 16 of the Karnataka Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act, 2004 (for short 'the Act') any person aggrieved by the order of the Special Court may appeal to the High Court. Accordingly, it is submitted that the matter that requires adjudication as per the appellate remedy available ought not to be short-circuited by bypassing the substantive remedy available by resorting to writ jurisdiction. 3. Taking note of the availability of substantive remedy under Section 16 of the Act, it would be appropriate to relegate the petitioners to avail of the substantive remedy. The interim order in operation would continue to operate for a period of 4 weeks from today, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19027 WP No. 10418 of 2025 within which the petitioners to take necessary steps to challenge the impugned order, if so advised, by resorting to the substantive appeal provision, i.e., Section 16 of the Act as is permissible in law. All contentions of the petitioners are kept open. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the time spent before this Court may be directed to be taken note of. 5. Needless to state that the benefit under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, is always open for the petitioners to be sought before the appropriate forum. 6. Accordingly, petition is disposed off. Office to return the original / certified copy, if any to the petitioners. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE VP