Karnataka HC Notices Sri Lankan Judge's Rights Plea
07 Mar 2026
Karnataka Proposes Social Media Ban for Under-16s
07 Mar 2026
Justice Dharmadhikari Sworn In as 55th Madras HC Chief Justice
07 Mar 2026
Punjab HC Acquits Ram Rahim in Journalist Murder
07 Mar 2026
Appellate Courts Can Rely on Unexhibited Public Documents Produced by Plaintiff: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Under Section 100 CPC
07 Mar 2026
Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
P. G. AJITHKUMAR
HIGHRICH ONLINE SHOPPE PRIVATE LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
COMPETENT AUTHORITY UNDER THE BANNING OF UNREGULATED DEPOSIT SCHEMES ACT, 2019 – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT :
P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J.
1. This is an appeal filed under Section 19 of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes (BUDS) Act, 2019. The appellants challenge Annexure A9 order of the Special Court, Thrissur. As per the impugned order, a petition filed by the respondent-Competent Authority seeking to confirm the provisional order of attachment and permission to sell the attached properties of the 1st appellant-company was allowed. The petitions filed by the appellants seeking to release the properties from attachment and allow them to reopen the supermarket in question were dismissed. The appellants challenge the said common orders both on legal and factual grounds.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Special Government Pleader.
3. The 1st appellant is a private limited company and appellants No. 2 and 3 are its Managing Director and Director respectively. The 1st appellant was conducting a supermarket and online business under the name and style Highrich Online Shoppe Pvt.Ltd. It was conducting a deposit scheme also under the guise of trading
The provisions of Section 14(1) of the BUDS Act exclude the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, meaning that any delay in filing for confirmation of attachment beyond the specified period....
The court found a procedural violation in not issuing statutory notices for asset attachment but allowed re-evaluation of the case, emphasizing the principles of natural justice while establishing th....
Provisional attachments under the BUDS Act must be confirmed by the Designated Court within statutory timelines; failure to do so renders the attachment invalid.
The competent authority under the BUDS Act can issue a provisional order of attachment without an exhaustive list of properties, provided that the list is submitted within the statutory timeframe set....
The Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act allows for the attachment and sale of property to ensure repayment to depositors without requiring a prior conviction of the deposit takers.
Properties purchased with depositor funds are subject to attachment under the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors Act, regardless of subsequent transfers.
The judgment emphasizes the need for a liberal interpretation of time limits and 'sufficient cause' in delay condonation applications, especially in cases involving the protection of depositors' inte....
The BUDS Act allows for the timely confirmation of attachment and sale of properties involved in unregulated deposit schemes, emphasizing the need to protect victims' interests and prevent asset deca....
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
Listen Article