Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 235819

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
E.S.INDIRESH, J
Sri Mulla Syed Mohammed Hussain S/o Amanath Makhdom Mulla – Appellant
Versus
The Competent Authority And Special Officer IMA Andother Kpidfe Act Cases, Bengaluru – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 24596 of 2025 (GM-RES) | Writ Petition No. 25076 of 2025 (GM-RES) | Writ Petition No. 25077 of 2025 (GM-RES) | Writ Petition No. 25080 of 2025 (GM-RES) | Writ Petition No. 25088 of 2025 (GM-RES) | Writ Petition No. 25089 of 2025 (GM-RES) | Writ Petition No. 25096 of 2025 (GM-RES) | Writ Petition No. 25106 of 2025 (GM-RES) | Writ Petition No. 25271 of 2025 (GM-RES) | Writ Petition No. 25279 of 2025 (GM-RES) | Writ Petition No. 25329 of 2025 (GM-RES)

Advocates:
For the Appellant: Sri. Abdul Majid., Sri. Satishkumar K.
For the Respondent: Sri. Veeresh R. Budihal.

The Court affirmed the principle that administrative authorities must consider applications regarding rights under scrutiny before judicial intervention.

Headnote:Statute Analysis: The judgment references the Karnataka Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act, 2004. Facts: Petitioners contested a notice from the Competent Authority alleging the notice was arbitrary, asserting violations of Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution.

Findings of Court:
The Court permitted petitioners to file a petition/application with the Competent Authority for de-freezing their bank accounts.

Issues: The Court framed whether the notice was arbitrary and its compatibility with fundamental rights.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized the necessity for petitioners to approach the Competent Authority, highlighting judicial respect for administrative processes.

Result: The petitions are disposed of.

Table of Content
1. validity of notice challenged under statutory provisions. (Para 2)
2. petitioners given liberty to seek relief from the competent authority. (Para 3)
3. judgment concludes with petition disposal. (Para 4)

ORAL ORDER

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

2. In these writ petitions, petitioners are assailing the Notice issued by the respondent/competent authority under the Provisions of the Karnataka Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act , 2004.

3. Having taken note of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the respondent, I am of the view that there is no impediment for the petitioner herein to file an appropriate petition/application before the Competent Authority seeking de-freezing of the bank account of the petitioners and in that view of the matter, while reserving liberty to the parties to approach the Competent Authority, no further WP No. 25077 of 2025 HC-KAR AND 8 OTHERS orders have to be made in these petitions. If the petitioners approach the Competent Authority, as stated above, same shall be considered by the Competent Authority, in accordance with law.

4. With these observations, these writ petitions are disposed of.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document