Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
Anu Sivaraman,J, RAJESH RAI K
Abdul Rahman Baig S/o Obedulla Baig – Appellant
Versus
Competent Authority – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction of case and parties involved. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. background facts of property transaction. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. arguments regarding notification errors and appellant's rights. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. legal principles around opportunity of hearing. (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. statutory requirements and obligations of the appellant. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 6. conclusion on the dismissal of the appeal. (Para 22) |
JUDGMENT :
ANU SIVARAMAN, J.
This MFA is filed assailing the order dated 06.06.2023 passed by the XCI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for KPIDFE cases, Bengaluru (CCH-92) in Misc. No.994/2022.
2. We have heard Shri. Abhilash Raju, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri. Veeresh R. Budihal, learned counsel for respondent No.1. Notice to respondents No.2 to 4 are dispensed with vide order dated 21.03.2024.
3. The brief facts of the case are:
The appellant was managing a small business of supplying stone materials, he wanted to purchase a flat to reside with his family in Bengaluru. Respondents No.3 and 4 offered to sell the schedule property for a total sale consideration of Rs.40,00,000/- and the appellant has
The court affirmed the legality of property attachment under the KPIDFE Act, emphasizing that failure to object to preliminary orders negates claims of procedural injustice.
An affected party is not entitled to relief if they are aware of legal proceedings and fail to participate, demonstrating that public notice can suffice in certain cases.
The court upheld the attachment of properties under the KPIDFE Act, emphasizing the necessity to protect depositors' interests despite the appellants' claims of procedural impropriety and lack of com....
Properties purchased with depositor funds are subject to attachment under the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors Act, regardless of subsequent transfers.
The court reinforced that purchasers must verify pending litigations before purchasing properties, especially those under attachment due to fraudulent implications.
The appeal was dismissed as the Designated Court's order for attachment of properties was found to comply with legal provisions without procedural violations, affirming the necessity of following sta....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
