Karnataka High Court
Smt Yashoda vs The Competent Authority on 7 November, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:44960-DB
MFA No. 7069 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7069 OF 2024
(KPIDFA)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. YASHODA
W/O LATE GANAPATHI M.
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
2. RAMANARAYANA SHARMA
S/O LATE GANAPATHI M.
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
3. MALATHI
D/O LATE GANAPATHI M.
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
Digitally signed ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.5/1
by
CHANNEGOWDA 1ST CROSS, C. CHIKKANNA GARDEN
PREMA
Location: High SHANKARAPURAM
Court of
Karnataka BENGALURU-560 004.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SMT. ANAGHA J. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY
FOR M/S. SRI VASISTA CREDIT SOUHARDA
CO-OPERATIVE LTD.
2ND FLOOR, 'C' BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING
SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 027
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:44960-DB
MFA No. 7069 of 2024
REPRESENTED BY ITS
COMPETENT AUTHORITY
SRI. SUDARSHAN B.K.
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
OFFICE OF SPECIAL OFFICER AND
COMPETENT AUTHORITY
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
2. M/S. SRI VASISTA CREDIT SOUHARDA
CO- OPERATIVE LTD.
REP. BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER (CEO)
VENKATANARAYANA K V, No.01
FIRST FLOOR
RAMANJANEYA ROAD
HANUMANTH NAGAR
BENGALURU-560 061
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VEERESH R. BUDIHAL, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.16 OF THE KARNATAKA
PROTECTION OF INTEREST OF DEPOSITORS IN FINANCIAL
ESTABLISHMENTS ACT, 2004 AGAINST THE ORDER
DT.14.10.2024 PASSED IN MISC.No.248/2024 ON THE FILE OF
THE XCI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND
SPL. JUDGE FOR KPIDFE CASES, BENGALURU, (CCH-92),
DISMISSING IA No.6 FILED BY THE LRS OF RESPONDENT No.2
OF TRIAL COURT U/S.12(5) OF KPIDFE ACT WITH COST OF
RS.3,000/- AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:44960-DB
MFA No. 7069 of 2024
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants as
well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
appellants that the appellants are aggrieved by the order
passed in I.A.No.6/2024 in Misc.Case.No.248/2024 of the
Special Court under the Karnataka Protection of Interest of
Depositors in Financial Establishments Act, 2004 (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Act' for short). It is submitted that the first
respondent in this appeal had filed the petition under Section
5(2) of the Act, before the Special Court. The allegation was
that deceased M. Ganapati was a member of the respondent
No.2 - Society and that he had availed a loan of
Rs.5,00,00,000/- on 29.01.2020. The said M. Ganapati passed
away on 08.05.2021 and that the appellants herein are the
legal heirs of said M.Ganapati. It is contended by them that a
crime had been registered as against M. Ganapati and the
Investigating Officer had summoned the appellants and had
required them to produce all the original documents with
NC: 2024:KHC:44960-DB
regard to loan availed by M. Ganapati. It is submitted that the
originals of all the documents are in the possession of said
Investigating Officer and that attempts made by them to
retrieve the originals were futile. It is submitted that in the
above circumstances, they have preferred I.A.No.6/2024
seeking production of originals of documents. It is submitted
that the attempt made by the appellants to mark the photo
copies of the documents have also been disallowed by the
Special Court. It is therefore contended that the rejection by
the Special Court of the I.A.No.6/2024 on the ground that it is
not in strict conformity with provisions of Rule 80 of the
Karnataka Civil Rules of Practice, 1967 is therefore, incorrect
and has led to a miscarriage of justice in as much as the crucial
documents are kept out of reckoning by the Special Court.
3. Learned counsel appearing for competent authority
submits that the appellants have made no attempt to retrieve
the documents from the Investigating Officer and the
application filed by them before the Special Court also did not
contain any such averments. It is contended that even the
relevancy of the documents is not specifically stated in the
petition filed by the first respondent before the Special Court.
NC: 2024:KHC:44960-DB
It is further contended that it is only to delay the passing of
final order that attempts are being made by the appellants at
the fag end of the proceedings when the matter stands posted
for arguments.
4. Having considered the contentions advanced, we
notice that the Special Court in the impugned order has
specifically referred to the pleadings made in the affidavit filed
in support of the application and has stated that appellants
have not made any efforts to obtain certified copies of the
documents from the Bank or the Investigating Officer before
summoning the documents through Court. It is also stated that
the documents which are sought to be summoned may not be
helpful for deciding the case on merits.
5. However, the learned counsel for the appellants
submits that a proper application will be made in terms of Rule
80 of the Karnataka Civil Rules of Practice, 1967, and the
Special Court may be directed to consider the same in
accordance with law.
6. We are of the opinion that a last chance can be given
in the interest of justice to the appellants to make a proper
NC: 2024:KHC:44960-DB
application. If a proper application in terms of Rule 80 is
placed on record before the Special Court within a week from
today, the same shall be considered and appropriate orders
shall be passed by the Special Court before proceeding further
in the matter.
In the above observations, appeal is disposed of.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(UMESH M ADIGA)
JUDGE
RAK
