LANCER FINANCE Vs. COMPETENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for respondent No.1.

(2.) This appeal is filed under Sec. 16 of the Karnataka Protection of Interest on Depositors in Financial Establishments Act, 2004 ('the KPIDFE Act' for short) against the order dtd. 12/1/2024 passed the Trial Court in Miscellaneous No.775/2023, wherein the Trial Court confirmed the interim order of attachment passed by the Government vide notification dtd. 20/6/2019 read with Corrigendum dtd. 3/11/2022 as absolute.

(3.) The factual matrix of the case is that the respondent No.1-Competent Authority for M/s. Lancer Finance Office represented by Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies filed the petition under Sec. 5(2) of KPIDFE Act seeking that the interim order of attachment be made as absolute in respect of the petition schedule properties, pursuant to the Government Notification dtd. 20/6/2019 contending that respondent No.1- M/s.Lancer Finance Office is the Proprietor Concern owned and managed by the respondent No.2 i.e., the appellants herein. The said proprietary concern was registered with the Registrar of money lenders and issued with a license for money lending business. The respondent No.2 has collected the deposits from the general public in the name of the respondent No.1 on the promise to return the same within specified time along with profits. However, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 have failed to return the deposited amount as promised. It is the contention that from and out of the deposit collected by the respondent No.1, the petition schedule properties were acquired in the name of the respondents Nos.2 and 3. The respondent No.3, who is the wife of the respondent No.2 is the benami owner of the half of the item No.2 of the schedule property situated at Yadavagiri, Devaraj Mohalla, Mysore District as she was not having any income of her own to purchase the said property. The sale consideration was paid by the respondent No.2 himself. Hence, the said property is treated as the personal assets of the respondent No.2 himself.