- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38022-DB WA No. 1095 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI WRIT APPEAL NO. 1095 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY & SPECIAL OFFICER FOR I MONETARY ADVISORY (IMA) AND ITS GROUP OF COMPANIES. REPRESENTED BY ITS COMPETENT AUTHORITY & SPECIAL OFFICER SRI AMLAN ADITYA BISWAS 3RD FLOOR, MINI V. V. TOWERS DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. VEERESH RACHAPPA BUDIHAL,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHALINI VARMA W/O LATE. SRI. AMAR VARMA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.45, 4TH BLOCK Digitally signed by PRABHAKAR SWETHA KRISHNAN Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38022-DB WA No. 1095 of 2025 8TH 'A' MAIN, KORAMANGALA BANGALORE - 560 032. 2. I MONETARY ADVISORY AND ITS GROUP OF ENTITIES IMA PUBLISHERS PVT. LTD. REPRESENTED BY ITS PROMOTER /MANAGING DIRECTOR MOHAMMED MANSOOR KHAN S/O ABID ALI KHAN AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS NO. 56/4, 1ST FLOOR, NANDI BUILDING HOSPITAL ROAD, SHIVAJINAGAR BENGALURU - 560 001. …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 18.06.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION No. 4994/2024 AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38022-DB WA No. 1095 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE) 1. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 18.06.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.4994/2024 (GM-RES). Respondent No.1 had filed the said petition, inter alia, praying that directions be issued to respondent No.2 to vacate and deliver the demised premises by de-sealing it and releasing the same from the attachment under the provisions of the Karnataka Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act, 2004 [the KPIDFE Act]. 2. The writ petitioner is the landlord of the scheduled property which was attached under Section 3(2) of the KPIDFE Act. Pursuant to an application (Misc.No.478/2020) moved by the competent authority under the KPIDFE Act, it was directed that the scheduled property would be handed over to the writ petitioner after receipt of refundable security deposit amounting to `10,00,000/-. The proceedings were essentially, directed against - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38022-DB WA No. 1095 of 2025 the tenant of the demised premises. There is no dispute that deposit of `10,00,000/- was made by the tenant, which was required to be refunded on handing over the possession of the demised premises. However, the writ petitioner had satisfied the Court that she is suffering from extreme hardship. She had no information as to the activities carried out by respondent No.2 and therefore, the attachment of the demised premises was unfairly prejudicing her. It is also contended on behalf of the writ petitioner that the proceedings under the KPIDFE Act could not be sustained for recovery of refundable security deposit made by the tenant in question. Further considering the writ petitioner would also have claims against the tenant, which were liable to be adjusted against the security deposit, the direction to pay the same under the KPIDFE Act was not sustained. 3. The learned Single Judge considered the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and directed that the keys of the demised premises be handed over to the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner, handed over a demand draft of `5,00,000/- in favour of the appellant. The writ petitioner was further directed to pay an amount of `5,00,000/- in equal instalments of four months. Thus, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38022-DB WA No. 1095 of 2025 the claim of the appellant in respect of the refundable security deposit would stand fully satisfied notwithstanding the writ petitioner's objections to the said demand. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant earnestly contended that the learned Single Judge had erred in entertaining the writ petition as the writ petitioner had an equally efficacious statutory remedy of appeal under the KPIDFE Act. It was also contended that the impugned order would be considered as a precedent for entertaining the writ petitions against which efficacious remedy is available. Additionally, he contended that the impugned order be modified to provide that the keys be handed over only on receipt of the remaining amount of `5,00,000/-, which was directed to be paid in instalments. 5. We are not persuaded to accept the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. The apprehension that the impugned order would be read as a precedent rendering the statutory provision of an appeal as otiose, is unmeritable. The learned Single Judge had clarified that the impugned order was passed in the peculiar circumstances of that case. Insofar as the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38022-DB WA No. 1095 of 2025 prayer that the impugned order be modified is concerned, we do not consider it apposite to pass any such order. 6. The impugned order indicates that the writ petitioner had expressed that she was suffering from extreme hardship and therefore, it would not be apposite to modify the directions for the writ petitioner to pay the remaining amount of `5,00,000/- in instalments. 7. In view of the above, the present appeal is disposed of. We however, clarify that if there is any default in payment of the instalments, the appellant would be at liberty to take necessary steps for enforcing the same. 8. Pending application stands disposed of. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE KPS, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33