w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Sree Shanmuga Modern Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bangarpet v/s The State of Karnataka, Rep. by the Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, Bangaluru & Others

    Writ Petition No. 8925 of 2022 (GM-RES)

    Decided On, 26 April 2022

    At, High Court of Karnataka

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

    For the Petitioner: P.B. Achappa, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1 to R3 & R5 to R8, Vinod Kumar, AGA.



Judgment Text

(Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the respondent to quash the Notification dated 24.02.2022 published in Time of India daily news paper on 04.03.2022 issued by the R-1 produced at Annexure-A, issue a writ of certiorari the Notification dated 25.02.2022 issued by the R-1 produced at Annexure-D and etc.)

1. The petitioner before this Court is seeking for the following relief:

(i) Issue a writ of certiorari to quashing the notification dated 24.02.2022, vide No. RD 43 GRC 2019, published in Times of India Daily News paper on 04.03.2022, issued by the respondent No. 1, produced at Annexure-A,

(ii) Issue a writ of certiorari the notification dated 25.02.2022, vide No. E-KOE 17 JRC 2022, issued by the respondent No.1 produced at Annexure-D,

(iii) Issue such other writ or writs or pass any such orders or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit under the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the KPID Act is not applicable to the transaction complained against the petitioner on the basis of which Annexure – A has been passed.

3. Sri. Achappa, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that some of the properties which have been attached in terms of Annexure – A had earlier been attached under KPID Act and therefore they ought not to have been attached once again.

4. A perusal of petition as also the Annexure-A thereof would indicate that there are a series of proceedings which have been initiated against the petitioner and its Directors. A charge sheet has been filed under Section 420 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code that the petitioner has collected sum of Rs.49,46,33,091 from 428 persons from the year 2000 upto 2016 and the petitioner-company and all the directors not having repaid any of the amounts received from such persons. There are also allegations as regards certain other chit funds which are said to be part of the said crime.

5. Sri. Achappa learned counsel however submit that there is no deposit which would come under the KPID Act and therefore the exercise of jurisdiction and issuance of Annexure – A is bad in law. On enquiry he submits that application of KPID Act has been challenged in a separate proceedings where there is no stay which has been granted. The present writ petition is only limited to the attachment order which has been passed in terms of Annexure – A.

6. On further enquiry he submits, as regards whether all the properties subject matter of Annexure – A had been attached earlier that only eight item at SI. No. 497 to 507 had been attached earlier and other properties had not been so attached. If that be so, the contention now urged that there was earlier attachment of all the properties under Annexure – A is completely baseless. The authorities can exercise power under the Act to attach the properties as and when found for any default under KPID Act and the attachment is no restricted to a single attachment but multiple attachment orders can be passed as regards multiple properties.

7. In the present case having found other properties, the respondent No.1 has issued the notification at Annexure – A. There cannot be any fault found with that, the attachment made in the benefit of the depositor. However, since properties under item no.497 to 507 at Annexure - A had already been attached in an earlier proceedings, there would no purpose by once again at

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

taching the same under Annexure – A. The authorities are free to deal with the earlier attached properties in accordance with law. As such the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage by passing the following: Order The writ petition is partly allowed. The attachment is so far as property at item No. 497 to 507, which is subject to the earlier attachment, is lifted.
O R