The Karnataka Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishment Act, 2004 overrides the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, prohibiting the Dy. Registrar from adjudicating disputes once a competent authority is appointed.

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner in WP No.20427/2025 has challenged an order bearing dated 31.01.2025 passed by the respondent No.2, by which a memo filed by him for rejection of the dispute, was rejected.

2. The petitioner in WP No.17816/2025 has challenged an order bearingdated 31.01.2025 passed by the respondent No.2, by which a memo filed by him for rejection of the dispute, was rejected.

3. (i) In WP No.20427/2025, respondent No.5 is a society registered under the provisions of the KARNATAKA SOUHARDA SAHAKARI ACT, 1997 (henceforth referred to as ‘the Act, 1997’ for short). The respondent No.6 is the Chief Executive Officer, the respondent No.7 is the President, and the respondent No.8 is the Branch Manager. The respondent Nos.3 and 4 being member of the respondent No.5 had deposited certain sums of money in the form of a fixed deposit with the respondent No.5. The respondent No.3 and 4 in this petition filed separate disputes before the respondent No.2 under Section 39 of the Act, 1997, for refund of the unpaid fixed deposit amount and accrued interest. The petitioner was the Vice-president of the respondent No.5.

(ii) In WP No.17816/2025 The respondent No.4 is a society registered under the provisions of the KARNATAKA SOUHARDA SAHAKARI ACT, 1997 (henceforth referred to as ‘the Act, 1997’ for short).The respondent No.5 is the Chief Executive Officer, the respondent No.6 is the President, and the respondent No.7 is the competent authority. The respondent No.3 being a member of the respondent No.4 had deposited certain sums of money in the form of a fixed deposit with the respondent No.4. The respondent No.3 in this petition filed separate disputes before the respondent No.2 under Section 39 of the Act, 1997, for refund of the unpaid fixed deposit amount and accrued interest. The petitioner was the Vice-president of the respondent No.4.

4. The petitioner contends that the State Government vide notification dated 15.09.2023, by invoking Section 5(1) of the Karnataka Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishment Act, 2004 (henceforth referred to as ‘the KPIDFE ACT, 2004 ’ for short), appointed the Joint Registrar of Co- operative Societies as the competent authority under the KPIDFE ACT, 2004 .

5. After receipt of a notice from the respondent No.2, concerning the disputes raised by respondent No.3 under Section 39 of the Act, 1997, the petitioner and other office bearers appeared and filed an application under Section 8 (2) of the Banning of Unregulated Deposits and Schemes Act, 2019 , for rejection of the petitions on the ground that the respondent No.2 lacks jurisdiction. This application was contested by the respondent No.3. Later, the petitioner filed a memo dated 03.02.2024 along with the notification dated 15.09.2023 referred supra and requested the respondent No.2 to reject the disputes.

6. The respondent No.3 filed objections to the memo. The respondent No.2 in terms of the impugned order dismissed the memo as well as the application filed by the petitioner and proceeded for further adjudication of the claim made by the respondent No.3. The petitioner is therefore before this Court, challenging the order passed by the respondent No.2.

7. The petitioner contends that Section 10 of the KPIDFE ACT, 2004 , prohibits the exercise of jurisdiction by any authority other than the Special Court. Therefore, it is contended that the respondent No.2 has no jurisdiction to proceed with the adjudication of the dispute before him.

8. It is also contended that in view of the appointment of the competent authority all the assets of the respondent No.5 in