Karnataka High Court
The Competent Authority And Special ... vs Shalini Varma on 22 September, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:38022-DB
WA No. 1095 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1095 OF 2025 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY &
SPECIAL OFFICER FOR
I MONETARY ADVISORY (IMA) AND
ITS GROUP OF COMPANIES.
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMPETENT
AUTHORITY & SPECIAL OFFICER
SRI AMLAN ADITYA BISWAS
Digitally 3RD FLOOR, MINI V. V. TOWERS
signed by
PRABHAKAR DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
SWETHA
KRISHNAN BENGALURU - 560 001.
Location: High ...APPELLANT
Court of
Karnataka (BY SRI. VEERESH RACHAPPA BUDIHAL,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHALINI VARMA
W/O LATE. SRI. AMAR VARMA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.45, 4TH BLOCK
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:38022-DB
WA No. 1095 of 2025
HC-KAR
8TH 'A' MAIN, KORAMANGALA
BANGALORE - 560 032.
2. I MONETARY ADVISORY
AND ITS GROUP OF ENTITIES
IMA PUBLISHERS PVT. LTD.
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROMOTER
/MANAGING DIRECTOR
MOHAMMED MANSOOR KHAN
S/O ABID ALI KHAN
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
NO. 56/4, 1ST FLOOR, NANDI BUILDING
HOSPITAL ROAD, SHIVAJINAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 18.06.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED
SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION No. 4994/2024 AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:38022-DB
WA No. 1095 of 2025
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)
1. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning an
order dated 18.06.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.4994/2024 (GM-RES). Respondent No.1 had filed the said
petition, inter alia, praying that directions be issued to respondent
No.2 to vacate and deliver the demised premises by de-sealing it
and releasing the same from the attachment under the provisions
of the Karnataka Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial
Establishments Act, 2004 [the KPIDFE Act].
2. The writ petitioner is the landlord of the scheduled property
which was attached under Section 3(2) of the KPIDFE Act.
Pursuant to an application (Misc.No.478/2020) moved by the
competent authority under the KPIDFE Act, it was directed that the
scheduled property would be handed over to the writ petitioner
after receipt of refundable security deposit amounting to
`10,00,000/-. The proceedings were essentially, directed against
NC: 2025:KHC:38022-DB
HC-KAR
the tenant of the demised premises. There is no dispute that
deposit of `10,00,000/- was made by the tenant, which was
required to be refunded on handing over the possession of the
demised premises. However, the writ petitioner had satisfied the
Court that she is suffering from extreme hardship. She had no
information as to the activities carried out by respondent No.2 and
therefore, the attachment of the demised premises was unfairly
prejudicing her. It is also contended on behalf of the writ petitioner
that the proceedings under the KPIDFE Act could not be sustained
for recovery of refundable security deposit made by the tenant in
question. Further considering the writ petitioner would also have
claims against the tenant, which were liable to be adjusted against
the security deposit, the direction to pay the same under the
KPIDFE Act was not sustained.
3. The learned Single Judge considered the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case and directed that the keys of the
demised premises be handed over to the writ petitioner. The writ
petitioner, handed over a demand draft of `5,00,000/- in favour of
the appellant. The writ petitioner was further directed to pay an
amount of `5,00,000/- in equal instalments of four months. Thus,
NC: 2025:KHC:38022-DB
HC-KAR
the claim of the appellant in respect of the refundable security
deposit would stand fully satisfied notwithstanding the writ
petitioner's objections to the said demand.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant earnestly
contended that the learned Single Judge had erred in entertaining
the writ petition as the writ petitioner had an equally efficacious
statutory remedy of appeal under the KPIDFE Act. It was also
contended that the impugned order would be considered as a
precedent for entertaining the writ petitions against which
efficacious remedy is available. Additionally, he contended that the
impugned order be modified to provide that the keys be handed
over only on receipt of the remaining amount of `5,00,000/-, which
was directed to be paid in instalments.
5. We are not persuaded to accept the contentions advanced
by the learned counsel for the appellant. The apprehension that the
impugned order would be read as a precedent rendering the
statutory provision of an appeal as otiose, is unmeritable. The
learned Single Judge had clarified that the impugned order was
passed in the peculiar circumstances of that case. Insofar as the
NC: 2025:KHC:38022-DB
HC-KAR
prayer that the impugned order be modified is concerned, we do
not consider it apposite to pass any such order.
6. The impugned order indicates that the writ petitioner had
expressed that she was suffering from extreme hardship and
therefore, it would not be apposite to modify the directions for the
writ petitioner to pay the remaining amount of `5,00,000/- in
instalments.
7. In view of the above, the present appeal is disposed of.
We however, clarify that if there is any default in payment of the
instalments, the appellant would be at liberty to take necessary
steps for enforcing the same.
8. Pending application stands disposed of.
Sd/-
(VIBHU BAKHRU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(C M JOSHI)
JUDGE
