- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18604 WP No. 9875 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.9875 OF 2026 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: MAHAVEER CALYX APARTMENT OWNERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT MR.PEDDINTI PRABHAKAR SASTRY MAHAVEER CALYX, NYANAPANAHALLI BTM-4TH STAGE, BENGALURU PIN CODE-560076 …PETITIONER (BY SRI.SUSHEEL SHANKAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY FOR M/S.SHREE SHAKTHI CREDIT SOUHARDA COOPERATIVE LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS COMPETENT AUTHORITY JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES 2. M/S.SHREE SHAKTHI CREDIT SOUHARDA CO-OPERATIVE LIMITED NO.171/1, 6TH CROSS, 8TH MAIN ROAD MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU - 560003 REPRESENTED BY ITS OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR SOUHARDA SAHAKARI SOUDHA, NO.68 1ST FLOOR, BETWEEN 17TH AND 18TH CROSS MARGOSA ROAD, MALLESHWARAM Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18604 WP No. 9875 of 2026 BENGALURU PIN CODE - 560055 3. M/S.KUMAR ENTERPRISES NO.9, 1ST FLOOR, 7TH CROSS, 7TH MAIN MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU - 560003 REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SRI.SUKUMAR B. NO.193/17, 1ST CROSS GIRINAGAR, IV PHASE OPPOSITE VINAYAKA HOSPITAL BENGALURU PIN CODE - 560085 4. SMT.TARA W/O MR.SINAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.316 DEVARACHIKKANAHALLI B.G.ROAD, BENGALURU PIN CODE - 560085 5. M/S. S.A. DEVELOPERS A PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR MR. SYED ALEEMULLA HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.950 1ST FLOOR, 27TH "A" MAIN, 9TH BLOCK JAYANAGAR BENGALURU PIN CODE- 560069 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.VEERESH RACHAPPA B, ADVOCATE FOR R.1) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18604 WP No. 9875 of 2026 IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30.06.2023 PASSED IN MISC.NO.298/2023 BY THE COURT OF THE XCI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE FOR KPIDFE CASES, BENGALURU (CCH-92), PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A AND ITS PRESEQUENT INTERIM ORDER OF ATTACHMENT DATED 07.02.2019 VIDE GOVERNMENT NOTIFICATION BEARING NO. RD 02 GRC 2015 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA IN ANNEXURE-N AND ALL CONSEQUENTIAL ACTIONS INCLUDING THE ATTACHMENT OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER At the outset, this Court deems it necessary to reiterate the well-settled principle governing exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, namely, that such jurisdiction is to be invoked sparingly and only in cases where no efficacious alternative remedy is available or where there is a patent lack of jurisdiction or manifest injustice. When the statute itself provides a complete machinery by way of an appeal, parties are required to exhaust such statutory - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18604 WP No. 9875 of 2026 remedy before invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. 2. The Karnataka Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act, 2004 (for short, “KPIDFE Act, 2004”) is a self-contained enactment providing not only for adjudication but also for appellate redressal under Section 16 of "KPIDFE Act, 2004". The legislative intent is clear that orders passed by the Competent Authority are subject to scrutiny by the Appellate Forum constituted under the KPIDFE Act, 2004. Entertaining petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in the face of such an efficacious remedy would render the statutory mechanism otiose and defeat the very object of the enactment. 3. This Court has consistently noticed an increasing tendency on the part of litigants to bypass statutory remedies and directly invoke the writ or supervisory jurisdiction, thereby converting this Court into a court of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18604 WP No. 9875 of 2026 first instance. Such a practice cannot be countenanced. Litigants cannot, as a matter of right, choose a forum of their convenience when the statute mandates a specific appellate forum. Entertaining such petitions not only undermines the statutory framework but also contributes to docket congestion, impeding the adjudication of matters requiring urgent constitutional scrutiny. 4. The contention of the petitioner that non-supply of records disentitles him from availing the appellate remedy cannot be accepted as a ground to invoke Article 227 of the Constitution of India at the threshold. It is always open to the petitioner to seek appropriate reliefs, including production of records, before the Appellate Authority itself. The existence of procedural grievances cannot be a justification to circumvent a statutory remedy, more so when the appellate forum is competent to address such ancillary issues. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18604 WP No. 9875 of 2026 5. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that litigants must be obligated to adhere to the statutory discipline of exhausting remedies provided under the enactments. The extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court cannot be permitted to be invoked in a routine manner, particularly when the statute provides a complete and efficacious appellate mechanism. Accordingly, reserving liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy of an appeal under Section 16 of the "KPIDFE Act, 2004", in accordance with law, the petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12