Full Judgment Text
- 1 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19589
WP No. 5049 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 8 DAY OF APRIL, 2026
R
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 5049 OF 2026 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
SMT. VANITHA S,
D/O SURYANARAYANA AITHAL
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
R/AT NO. 103, 1ST FLOOR,
YUGAL PARADISE,
HESARAGATTA, VIDYARANYAPURA,
BENGALURU DISTRICT-560 097
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. DALWAI VENKATESH., ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE SPECIAL OFFICER AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY
FOR IMA AND OTHER KPID CASES,
RD
OFFICE AT 3 FLOOR,
MINI VV TOWER, PODIUM BLOCK,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560001
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMPETENT AUTHORITY
SRI. AMLAN ADITYA BISWAS,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
COMPETENT AUTHORITY AND SPECIAL OFFICER
FOR, SIRI VAIBHAVA SOUHARDA PATTINA SAHAKARI
NIYAMITA
…RESPONDENT
(V/O DATED 17.02.2026, VEERESH R BUDIHAL (VK NOT FILED)
Digitally signed
by CHAITHRA A
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19589
WP No. 5049 of 2026
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
A. ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE LEARNED
XCI ADDI. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS AND SPECIAL JUDGE
FOR KPIDFE CASES AT BENGALURU (CCH-92), IN MISC. NO.
1467/2025 TO TAKE THE PETITIONER'S APPLICATION UNDER
ORDER VII RULE 11 CPC ON FILE PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-C
AND DISPOSE OF ON MERITS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW,
B. GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEFS AS THIS HON'BLE COURT
DEEMS FIT IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL ORDER
The captioned writ petition is filed calling in question
the order passed by the Special Court constituted under
the provisions of the Karnataka Protection of Interest of
Depositors in Financial Establishments Act, 2004 (for
short, “KPIDFE Act”), whereby the application filed by the
petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (for short, “CPC”) came to be rejected as
not maintainable.
- 3 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19589
WP No. 5049 of 2026
HC-KAR
2. The respondent initiated proceedings under
Section 13 of the KPIDFE Act seeking attachment of
properties allegedly belonging to the petitioner.
3. Upon service of notice, the petitioner entered
appearance and filed objections. Simultaneously, the
petitioner filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC
seeking rejection of the petition on the ground that the
same does not disclose any cause of action and is not
maintainable.
4. The Special Court, by the impugned order,
rejected the said application holding that an application
under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is not maintainable in
proceedings under Section 13 of the KPIDFE Act.
5. The petitioner contends the KPIDFE Act does
not expressly exclude applicability of CPC. He further
submits that Section 12(5) of the KPIDFE Act mandates
following summary procedure akin to Order XXXVII CPC
and therefore by virtue of Section 4 CPC, general
- 4 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19589
WP No. 5049 of 2026
HC-KAR
procedural provisions including Order VII Rule 11 would
apply and that Proceedings under Section 13 of the
KPIDFE Act are civil in nature. He therefore vehemently
submits that the impugned order is non-speaking.
6. Reliance is placed on Jammu and Kashmir
1
Bank Ltd. v. Digvijay Cement , wherein it is held that
provisions of CPC apply to summary suits unless
specifically excluded.
7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned counsel appearing for the respondent. Perused
the records. On meticulous examination, the following
point arises for consideration:
"Whether an application under Order VII Rule
11 CPC is maintainable in proceedings before the
Special Court under Section 13 of the KPIDFE Act?"
8. The KPIDFE Act is a special legislation enacted
to protect the interests of depositors, provide for speedy
1
RFA (OS) No.46 of 2006
- 5 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19589
WP No. 5049 of 2026
HC-KAR
attachment and realization of properties of defaulting
financial establishments and ensure expeditious recovery
and distribution. The KPIDFE Act provides a self-contained
mechanism, beginning from ad-interim attachment under
Section 3 of the KPIDFE Act, confirmation through Special
Court under Section 12 of the KPIDFE Act, adjudication of
claims and objections, final orders regarding attachment.
The entire scheme is time-bound and recovery-oriented,
unlike ordinary civil litigation.
9. Proceedings before the Special Court are not in
the nature of a “suit” instituted by a plaint. Instead they
are statutory proceedings triggered by State action. The
Court exercises special jurisdiction. The process is
investigative and summary, not adversarial in the
traditional civil sense. Therefore, the foundational
requirement for invoking Order VII Rule 11 CPC, i.e.,
existence of a plaint, is absent.
- 6 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19589
WP No. 5049 of 2026
HC-KAR
10. Section 12(5) of the KPIDFE Act provides that
the Special Court shall follow the summary procedure as
contemplated under Order 37 CPC and exercise powers of
a civil court. This provision is qualified by the expression -
“subject to the provisions of this Act”. Thus, the
applicability of CPC is limited, conditional, and s ubordinate
to the scheme of the Act.
11. Order 37 CPC deals with summary suits,
primarily intended for speedy disposal of commercial
claims. Order XXXVII Rule 7 CPC, states, save as provided
by this order, procedure shall be same as ordinary suits.
However, even within Order XXXVII, the procedure is
structured and limited. The defendant’s rights are curtailed
and leave to defend is conditional. Importantly, Order
XXXVII applies only where a suit is instituted and a plaint
exists.
12. Order VII Rule 11 CPC provides for rejection of
a plaint under specified grounds. In the present statutory
- 7 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19589
WP No. 5049 of 2026
HC-KAR
framework, proceedings are not initiated by a plaint. There
is no “suit” in a strict sense. The Special Court is not
exercising ordinary civil jurisdiction. Therefore, the very
jurisdictional foundation for invoking Order VII Rule 11 is
absent.
13. It is a settled principle that where a special
Statute prescribes a particular procedure, general
procedural law applies only to the extent it is not
inconsistent. In the present case, the KPIDFE Act
contemplates investigation of objections, not rejection at
threshold. The Court is required to examine claims on
merits. The process is intended to secure depositor
interests expeditiously.
14. Permitting Order VII Rule 11 CPC, applications
would introduce preliminary adjudication delays, defeat
the time-bound scheme and frustrate the object of the
legislation. In the backdrop of the statutory scheme and
the underlying object of the KPIDFE Act, the contention
- 8 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19589
WP No. 5049 of 2026
HC-KAR
advanced by the petitioner seeking invocation of the
provisions of Order VII Rule 11 CPC requires careful and
contextual examination.
15. The KPIDFE Act is designed to secure
immediate protective measures in respect of the
properties of defaulting financial establishments so as to
safeguard the interests of depositors. If applications
invoking Order VII Rule 11 CPC are entertained at the
threshold of such proceedings, the inevitable consequence
would be to derail and delay the process of attachment
and preservation of assets, introduce preliminary
adjudicatory stages not contemplated by the statute and
frustrate the legislative mandate of expeditious and time-
bound adjudication.
16. The scheme of the KPIDFE Act, particularly
under Section 12, makes it abundantly clear that the
Special Court is required to investigate objections raised
by interested parties and adjudicate upon them on merits.
- 9 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19589
WP No. 5049 of 2026
HC-KAR
Such adjudication necessarily involves examination of
claims and counter-claims, appreciation of evidence and
determination of rights and interests in the attached
properties.
17. The legislative intent, therefore, is to ensure
that objections are substantively adjudicated, rather than
being non-suited at the threshold on technical pleas
relating to maintainability.
18. The reference to summary procedure under
Order XXXVII CPC, 1908 in Section 12(5) of KPIDFE Act is
purpose-specific and limited in its import. The legislative
intent behind such incorporation is to provide a
streamlined and expedited procedure and avoid the delays
inherent in ordinary civil trials. It is not intended to result
in wholesale importation of all provisions of CPC into
proceedings under the KPIDFE Act.
19. If the contention of the petitioner is accepted, it
would lead to a situation where proceedings under the
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19589
WP No. 5049 of 2026
HC-KAR
KPIDFE Act could be terminated at the threshold by
resorting to technical objections, thereby stalling the
process of investigation, delaying recovery proceedings
and undermining the efficacy of the statutory mechanism.
Such an interpretation would run contrary to both the
scheme and the object of the enactment.
20. It is a settled principle of statutory
interpretation that a beneficial legislation must receive a
construction that advances its object rather than defeats
it. The KPIDFE Act, being a welfare legislation intended to
protect a vulnerable class of depositors, must be
interpreted in a manner that facilitates speedy recovery
and distribution, ensures effective adjudication of claims
and avoids procedural impediments inconsistent with its
design.
21. The proceedings before the Special Court are
thus required to be substance-oriented and result-driven,
with emphasis on protection of depositor interests, rather
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19589
WP No. 5049 of 2026
HC-KAR
than being encumbered by procedural technicalities drawn
from the general law of civil procedure. Viewed from this
perspective, the invocation of Order VII Rule 11 CPC in
proceedings under the KPIDFE Act is clearly misconceived
and incompatible with the statutory framework, and the
Special Court is fully justified in declining to entertain such
an application.
22. The reliance on Jammu and Kashmir Bank
(supra) is misplaced. In the said case, proceedings
Ltd.
arose from a civil suit under Order XXXVII CPC, a plaint
was present and the Court was exercising ordinary civil
jurisdiction. Though the petitioner contends that the order
is non-speaking, a perusal of the impugned order indicates
that the Special Court has recorded a finding regarding
non-maintainability, the conclusion flows from the
statutory scheme. Merely because the order is concise
does not render it illegal when the conclusion is legally
sustainable.
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19589
WP No. 5049 of 2026
HC-KAR
23. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view
that the proceedings under Section 13 of the KPIDFE Act
are not suits, Order VII Rule 11 CPC applies only to plaints
in civil suits, Section 12(5) incorporates only a limited
procedural framework and importing Order VII Rule 11
CPC would be inconsistent with the scheme and object of
the KPIDFE Act.
24. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds
to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The writ petition stands dismissed ;
(ii) All contentions on merits are left
open to be adjudicated by the Special Court in
accordance with law.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
CA / List No.: 1 Sl No.: 100