Karnataka High Court
Mr. Sridhara Brahmavara vs Office Of The Joint Director on 15 November, 2024
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:46532
WP No. 12729 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 12729 OF 2023 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. MR. SRIDHARA BRAHMAVARA
S/O SRI MOHAN POOJARI
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
R/A FLAT NO.A1203
12TH FLOOR PURVA VENEZIA APARTMENTS
YALAHANKA NEW TOWN
BENGLAURU - 560 096.
2. SRI S JAYANNA,
S/O SIDDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
R/A FLAT NO.6, IST FLOOR, M K MOON RESIDENCY,
SITE NO.26/5, SRIGANDHA KAVAL,
BENGALURU - 560 091.
Digitally signed by 3. SMT PUSHPALATHA
R HEMALATHA W/O JAYANNA
Location: HIGH
COURT OF AGED ABOUT YEARS
KARNATAKA R/A FLAT NO.6, IST FLOOR
MK MOON RESIDENTY
SITE NO.26/5, SRIGANDHA KAVAL,
BENGALURU - 560 091.
4. SRI K N RAJU
S/O NANJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 63 YHEARS
R/A NO.2, 3RD MAIN ROAD
BRAMHAKUMARI ASHRAMA ROAD
OPP NETHARA DISTRIBUTORS
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:46532
WP No. 12729 of 2023
HEALHT LAYOUT
SRIGANDHAKAVALU
BENGALURU - 560 091.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. VINAY KUTTAPPA., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. OFFICE OF THE JOINT DIRECTOR
DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
BENGALURU ZONAL OFFICE
REPRSENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
ENFORCEMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA.
2. SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE
NO.40, IST BLOCK, 2ND STAGE
NEAR BDA COMPLEX
NAGARABHAVI
BANGALORE - 560 072.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRASANNA KUMAR P., ADVOCATE)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE NOTICE
DTD 15.10.2020 ECIR/BGZO/09/2020(ADRKR) ISSUED BY R-1 QUA
THE PETITIONER IN RELATION TO THE PETITION SCHEDULE
PROPERTIES PRODUCED AS ANNX-A AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner asserts that he was the successful bidder
in the auction conducted by the Union Bank of India. Upon
depositing the requisite amount, the sale was confirmed.
Subsequently, after payment of the entire balance sale
NC: 2024:KHC:46532
consideration, the Union Bank of India issued a sale certificate
in favor of the petitioner in relation to Site Nos. 169 and 171,
more fully described in Schedule 'A' and Schedule 'B'
properties. The two sale certificates issued in favor of the
petitioner were duly registered in the office of Respondent No.
2 on 14.06.2019.
2. Petitioner No. 4, who is a co-owner of the subject
properties, intends to release his share in the subject
properties in favor of Petitioner Nos. 1 to 3. Accordingly, a
relinquishment deed was submitted to Respondent No. 2 for
registration.
3. Respondent No. 2, however, refused to register
the relinquishment deed, citing a notice issued by Respondent
No. 1 on 16.10.2020, directing Respondent No. 2 not to allow
the transfer, sale, or alienation of the subject properties. The
said notice was issued in connection with an investigation
under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA)
concerning Sri Guru Raghavendra Sahakara Bank Niyamitha.
4. The issue of whether the provisions of the
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 authorize
Respondent No. 1 to direct the registering authority to refuse
the registration of conveyances involving immovable property,
on the ground of claims under the PMLA, has been previously
examined by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.
NC: 2024:KHC:46532
No. 10383/2024 (order dated 19.07.2024). The Co-ordinate
Bench, relying on the decision of the Bombay High Court in
SBICAP Ventures Ltd. v. Joint Director, Directorate of
Enforcement (Bengaluru Zonal Office) and Others, W.P.
No. 1360/2023 (order dated 20.03.2023), and judgments of
this Court in T. Bharat Gowda v. State of Karnataka and
Others, W.P. No. 7872/2024 (order dated 28.05.2024), and
K.M. Srikant v. State of Karnataka and Others, W.P. No.
10530/2023, held that, in the absence of any statutory
provision empowering the Enforcement Directorate to object to
the registration of a sale certificate, any such refusal by the
registering authority based on the Directorate's notice was
arbitrary and illegal.
5. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed
of in terms of the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court in W.P. No. 10383/2024. Respondent No. 2 is
directed to process the registration of the relinquishment deed
submitted by the petitioners, without being influenced by the
notice dated 16.10.2020 issued by Respondent No. 1.
ORDER
i. Petition is allowed.
ii. The impugned notice dated 16.10.2020 issued by the
1st respondent in relation to the petition schedule
properties at Annexure A is hereby quashed.
NC: 2024:KHC:46532
iii. The 2nd respondent is hereby directed to register the
conveyance/deeds in relation to the petitioner schedule
properties. However, this order is subject to any order of
restrained to be passed by the jurisdictional Court.
Sd/-
(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR)
JUDGE
TIN
