In THE HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA AT .
Dated this the 15*-5 day of Jafluany,
BEFORE
THE 1~:o1I_*nLE am. mfifrzcm it immalxz H
Writ Pefition No; '2o23:3 §$;E'V'22v§':c§:# (s:;:sa--R13:é1
BET'WEEN :
M/3 Master Cofiéé C???-iflg Wofkfi 4'
Rep. by its Paxinrfr " Q A" ' '
Shri Abdul Rz£iune§:i'_K.I. » '
Aged about'_(}9 ,_ _ , "
BM Roar; .. *3, ' _
Kodagu Dis'3Eric::t Petitioner
_ S lAT:l3;1»'ai11i'.i1*a.:shckar, Advacatc)
, A ..... .. N
"1 A f'State..;§fKa:}'aamka
-- V£)'e1iart§:z;e1zijfo{"Co--ape1ative Society
'-- Ms Buiifiing
Esp. by' i,E$}'SccIt:la1y
F§.ahgé}pI*£=,--1
., A' The Amanafh Co--pcrat':ivc Bank Ltd"
_ 'N_o§'43, Hospital Road T
Bangalore:
Rep. by its Managing Director Resfmndenfs
(By Sri Nanmdm Pmsad, Advocate for R1;
M] 9 Prime Law Associates, Advocates for R2)
This mi: Petitiozu is filed under Articles
the fjonstitufion of India, praying to quash tht--::__ p0jsse§ssi¢:m
notice issued by the respondent under the ScC11£itisa1ion" A4;-t,
dated 9-1o–2ocs7 published in the many f€cws’._Papct””*’i’fh1=:*1’ées=s%*.
Indian Express Bangalom” dated },_2-1:G–2€)(}?.
This Writ Petition comm’ ¢§}:]Ei”..f0T in ‘V
‘B’ Group flxia day, the Court madé’ :_f<::11oWi:*1g:T ' '
0% 9%
The pefifiqnetzé has ivrit petition the:
possession Secfion 13(4) of the
Secuxitisafima. Financiai Assets and
Enfameamént of (fit, 2092.
_ ” This time Case of V. xntsmmswammm
31* 12’s sscmmrer AMI
“‘4No24£m2 in Inn 2007 max 4740, has held that
” Ciaeqpcrfzfifie Bank is not a Banking Company as defined
uxgdaf S(c<;:.) 0f the Banldng Regulation Act. Therefore, a
'C0-_Q]}iBI'afiVE Bank cannot ixlitiatc pmczaedrings undetr the
pfipvisions of the Secilritisaticm Act. 1: is held that any
" pztzcecdings is void, ab initia.
3, In the light of the aforesaid =
Court, the £3231tiI'€: pmoeexiings by 1116 " " "
bringing the property of the fizéri
::;1on–Qomp1ian<:e 0f the nofice Segtfion is *
followed by an order under 13(4i~ Act is
unsustainable. Hence, I pégéa th1§'o:tie1':
Writ pefiflog. antics at
Judge
1/ _i{%s£;/E. _ A