- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19034 WP No. 26896 of 2023 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. 26896 OF 2023 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. HARISH K P S/O PRABHAKAR A.S AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/AT KRIANGURU GEEMA, K. SHETTYHALLI SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK, MANDYA-571 807 REP BY HIS GPA HOLDER MR. MOHAMMED IRFAN S/O MOHAMMED AZGAR AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS 2. SRI. MOHAMMED RIZWAN AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, S/O LATE M. MOHAMMED ASGAR, R/AT NO. 25, 26, MARRY A STREET, EZEKHIEL LAYOUT, KADUGONDAHANALLI, ARABIC COLLEGE POST, BANGALORE-560 045. … PETITIONERS (BY SRI. NAVEED AHMED., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by VIJAYA P Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19034 WP No. 26896 of 2023 AND: 1. THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY FOR M/S AALA VENTURESE LTD., DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (URBAN) BANGALORE KANDAYA BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD, BANGALORE-560 009. 2. M/S AALA VENTURES LTD HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO. 403, 3RD FLOOR, 5TH CROSS, 5TH MAIN, 1ST STAGE, 3RD BLOCK, HBR LAYOUT, KALYAN NAGARA P.O BANAGLORE-560 043 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. [REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT) … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VEERESH R BUDIHAL., ADVOCATE FOR R1) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO a) QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN MISC. NO. 1084/2019 PASSED BY THE XCI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE, BANGALORE FOR KPIDFE CASES, BANGALORE (CCH- 92) DATED 07/10/2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19034 WP No. 26896 of 2023 ORAL ORDER In this petition, petitioners have called in question the validity of order passed in Misc. No. 1084/2019. 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, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19034 WP No. 26896 of 2023 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