VISWANATHA BHEEMASHANKARA DEEPALI Vs. COMPETENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the appellant under Sec. 16 of the Karnataka Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') challenging the order dtd. 5/1/2024 passed in Misc.No.715/2023 by the XCI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for KPIDFE Cases, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court').

(2.) The brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal are that the respondent No.2-Society is registered under Sec. 5 of the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997, on 23/10/2013. A complaint was filed against the respondent No.2 alleging misuse and misappropriation of the deposits and failure to return the said deposits to the depositors. The Government, pursuant to the said complaint initiated proceedings under the provisions of the Act and appointed the respondent No.1 as the Competent Authority under the Act. In furtherance of exercising its powers under the Act, the Government ordered for attachment of the properties of the respondent No.2. As the properties, in the name of the respondent No.2 was found to be insufficient to meet the claims of the depositors, which stood around Rs.42.72 Crores, the properties of the Directors and the associated persons were also attached by the Government. The appellant is one of the Directors of the respondent No.2, whose properties were provisionally attached. The respondent No.1, in pursuance to the said provisional attachment, filed a petition in Misc.No.715/2023 under Sec. 5(2) of the Act, seeking to make the interim order of attachment, absolute. The Trial Court, after considering the material on record allowed the said petition, making the attachment absolute and also ordered for realization of the said property through a public auction. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant is in appeal.

(3.) Per Contra, Sri.Veeresh R. Budihal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Authority supports the impugned order of the Trial Court and submits that the Trial Court has passed the impugned order after detailed consideration of the material available on record. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the appeal.