- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22099 WP No. 36468 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 36468 OF 2024 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. GOUTAM MALOO S/O BHAWERLAL MALOO, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/O AT D - 1802, ETA GARDEN, MAGADI ROAD, BINNY MILL ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 023. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. G KRISHNAMURTHY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. SAMPATH BAPAT., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560001. 2. COMPETENT AUTHORITY FOR SRI. KANVA SOUHARDA CREDIT CO OPERATIVE LIMITED AND KANVA GROUP OF COMPANIES BENGALURU AND ADDITIONAL REGIONAL COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER BENGALURU DIVISION BMTC BUILDING 2ND FLOOR, K H ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU - 560027 Digitally signed by VIDYA G R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22099 WP No. 36468 of 2024 A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT 1956. 3. THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER REVENUE DEPARTMENT, BANGALORE DIVISION AND NODAL OFFICER EX OFFICIO SECRETARY, (ECONOMIC OFFENCES) 2ND FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, SHANTHINAGAR, K H ROAD, BENGALURU - 560027. 4. SHRI N NANJUNDAIAH S/O S NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS FOUNDER DIRECTOR/ DIRECTOR AND PROPRIETOR SRI. KANVA SOUHARDA CREDIT CO OPERATIVE LIMITED AND KANVA GROUP OF COMPANIES NO. A -408, R/A BRIGADE APARTMENT, MALLESHWARAM BANGALORE - 560003. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MOHAMMED JAFAR SHAH, AGA FOR R1 & R3; SRI. VEERESH R BUDIHAL., ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 9.1.2024 IN MISC. NO.1204/2023, PASSED BY THE XCI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPL.JUDGE FOR KPIDFE CASES, BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE G, SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO SCHEDULE PROPERTY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22099 WP No. 36468 of 2024 ORAL ORDER Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for respondent Nos.1 to 3. The issuance of notice to private respondent No.4 is dispensed with. 2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 09.01.2024 passed in Misc.No.1204/2023 by the Court of XCI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for KPIDFE Cases, Bengaluru. 3. Sri G. Krishnamurthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner has purchased the property which is now subject matter of auction proceedings through the Sale Deed dated 04.02.2020 (Annexure-A). 4. It is submitted that the proceedings for adjudication under Section 3(2) of KPIDFE Act, 2004, the notification was issued by the Government of Karnataka on 30.08.2023. It is submitted that, the name of the petitioner despite his purchase of property on 04.02.2020 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22099 WP No. 36468 of 2024 is not found in any of the orders of attachment subsequently made absolute by the Special Court. Accordingly, it is submitted that the proceedings are not legally tenable insofar as the property in question is concerned. 5. Sri Veeresh R. Budihal, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 would submit that, in effect, the petitioner has called in question the attachment made absolute by the Special Court, against which order, there is a substantive remedy under Section 16 of the KPIDFE Act, 2004. 6. Section 16 of KPIDFE Act, 2004 reads as follows:- "16. Appeal.- Any person including the competent authority, if aggrieved by an order of the Special Court, may appeal to the High Court within thirty days from the date of the order." 7. The provision in Section 16 is broad enough to include any person as may be aggrieved by the order of the Special Court. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22099 WP No. 36468 of 2024 8. Noting the availability of substantive remedy, it would be appropriate to relegate the petitioner to avail of the substantive remedy. It would meet the ends of justice by directing the respondents not to issue any Sale Certificate for a period of three weeks from today. All contentions are kept open. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the time spent in the present writ proceedings as well as the earlier round of litigation may be taken note of while calculating the limitation. 10. Needless to state that the request of the petitioner regarding the time spent in the present proceedings as well as the preceding writ proceedings may be raised before the Appellate Court. Accordingly, the petition is disposed off. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE VGR