IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
Integrated Rural Development Centre (IRDC) – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. The above writ petitions are filed with following prayers :
W.P. (C) No. 12462 of 2025
“i. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to take appropriate action on the Ext P1 to P22 as per the powers vested on him under the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes (BUDS) Act, 2019 and as per the Ext P23.
ii. Grant such other and further reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.” [sic]
W.P. (Crl) No. 299 of 2025
“i. “Issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ, order or direction directing the 2nd Respondent to consider Ext. P3 to P3(f) Representations and taken a decision on the same within a timeframe fixed by this Hon’ble Court;
ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ, order or direction directing the 2nd Respondent to initiate and take all the necessary action under the BUDS Act against Respondents Nos. 3 to 8;
iii. Grant such other reliefs, as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the given facts and circumstances of the case. iv. To dispense with the filing of translations of the vernacular documents.” [sic]
2. The prayer in these writ petitions is to conside
The court mandated timely action on representations under the BUDS Act, emphasizing the importance of administrative efficiency.
The competent authority must determine if statutory conditions for referral to the CBI under the BUDS Act are satisfied before proceeding with the investigation.
The court emphasizes the necessity of timely action on representations under the BUDS Act for addressing fraud in deposit schemes.
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....
The court established that provisional attachments under the Act must be confirmed within 60 days, as failure to do so results in the lapse of the attachment.
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 ruled that a Settlement Scheme cannot be processed until legal proceedings under the BUDS Act are resolved, emphasizing the statutory framework for handling deposit claims.
Court directs consideration of representation under BUDS Act for co-operative society deposit recovery amid financial distress.
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 Court mandates a timely response from an administrative authority concerning a representation made under statutory provisions.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.