R. ELAHI Vs. COMPETENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Naveed Ahmed, counsel appearing for Sri Noormohammed, for the appellants.

(2.) In all these appeals, the appellants were not the parties in the proceeding initiated by the competent authority under sec. 5 of the Karnataka Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act, 2004, in the Special Court. On 7/3/2022 the Special Court passed an order in the proceeding pending before it permitting the competent authority to attach the properties standing in the name of the first respondent company. Appellants claim to be lessees under the second respondent, i.e., Mohammed Mansoor Khan who is said to be the Managing Director of the first respondent company. Copies of the lease deeds are produced. These lease deeds indicate that the properties said to be in possession of each appellant were leased by the second respondent in his individual capacity. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that each appellant has paid a certain sum of money to the second respondent towards security deposit in connection with the lease and therefore the order of attachment passed by the Special Court has fettered their hands from recovering the money from the second respondent. In this view, they are aggrieved persons and therefore they may be permitted to prefer these appeals.

(3.) It is not possible to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants. The lease deeds show that the second respondent executed lease deeds in his individual capacity in favour of the appellants having received different sums of money from each appellant towards security deposit. Strictly speaking the appellants have to recover money from the second respondent.