- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31127 WP No. 4254 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO.4254 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: SHAIK SHAHABAUDDIN S/O. SHAIK MEERAVALLI AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 31ST WARD, 1ST CROSS NC COLONY, HOSPETE TALUK VIJAYANAGAR DISTRICT-583201. &PETITIONER (BY SRI. SYED JAFFER MOHIYUDDIN, ADVOCATE) AND: THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY FOR AHANA SOUHARDA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD, 3RD FLOOR, MINI-V.V.TOWER PODIUM BLOCK, DR.AMBEDKAR VIDHI BENGALURU- 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMPETENT AUTHORITY SRI. SUDHARSHAN B.K., ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS &RESPONDENT (BY SRI. VEERESH BUDIHAL, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 12.09.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED XCI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31127 WP No. 4254 of 2025 SESSSIONS JUDGE (CH92), PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE- C AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 12.09.2025 in Mis.No.445/2024 [Annexure-C] by the Special Court under the provisions of the Karnataka Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act, 2004 [for short, 'the KPIDFE Act']. The Special Court, by this order, has condoned the delay allowing the application filed by the respondent and confirmed the initial attachment order with a direction to sell the property. Sri Syed Jafar Mohiyuddin, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that this Court may grant indulgence to the petitioner because the outstanding, even according to the respondent, is only in a sum of - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31127 WP No. 4254 of 2025 Rs.70,000/-. Sri Veeresh Budhihal, the learned counsel for the respondent, submits that his instructions are that the due will be in a sum between Rs.97,000/- and Rs.98,000/-, and if this amount is indeed offered bonafide, precipitous action may not be. The learned counsel also emphasizes that if the petitioner has any grievance with the impugned order, he must necessarily avail remedy under Section 68 of the KPIDFE Act. These circumstances are considered. With Sri.Syed Jaffer Mohiyuddin stating categorically that even if the outstanding is in a sum between Rs.97,000/- and Rs.98,000/- and that the same will be offered to achieve quietus within a week from today, this Court is of the view that the petition must be disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to offer Rs.97,000/- or any further sum as is due, within a week from today calling upon the respondent to accept such deposit on terms. This would prevent - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31127 WP No. 4254 of 2025 protracted proceedings. As such, this Court concludes that if the petitioner offers the amount due and accepted by the respondent, the attachment order shall stand dissolved, and consequently there shall be no further proceedings. However, if the petitioner cannot deposit the amount due for any reason, he must avail his remedy under Section 16 of the KPIDFE Act. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. SD/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE SA ct:sr