<p>Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has refused to interfere with the order confirming the attachment of assets against Lancer Finance, a Mysuru-based firm, under the provisions of Karnataka Protection of Interest on Depositors in Financial Establishments (KPIDFE) Act. </p><p>It is alleged that the firm had not returned approximately Rs 15 crore to its depositors.</p>.Mediclaim reimbursement to be deducted from accident compensation, says Karnataka HC.<p>On June 20, 2019, the state government passed an interim attachment order of the assets of the company. On January 12, 2024, the special court for KPIDFE cases confirmed the attachment orders.</p><p>Lancer Finance and its proprietor one Rajendra moved the HC contending that the proceedings were initiated only at the instance of the then SP of (Mysuru) Abhinav Khare and the then MP of Mysuru Pratap Simha. On the other hand, the competent authority under KPIDEF Act submitted that the proceedings were initiated after the police submitted the report to the state government. The government after considering the reasons passed the interim attachment of the assets, it was submitted.</p><p>Justice HP Sandesh noted that the proprietor of the firm Rajendra has admitted to the fact that there are 29 cases, of which in 3 cases charge sheets were also filed. </p><p>The court also pointed out from the trial court order that the police had conducted an investigation based on the complaint by one Chitralekha alleging non-payment of Rs 51 lakh deposit amount even after the maturity.</p><p>“Counsel for the appellants would contend that if any depositors claim for any amount, they will make payment. If that is the case, if they make the payment, they can seek appropriate relief before the competent jurisdiction. But, on perusal of the material available on record, based on the report of the Deputy Commissioner, Assistant Commissioner and also the investigation conducted by the Superintendent of Police, the proceedings have been initiated. Hence, I do not find any merit in the appeal to come to any other conclusion,” the court said.</p>
<p>Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has refused to interfere with the order confirming the attachment of assets against Lancer Finance, a Mysuru-based firm, under the provisions of Karnataka Protection of Interest on Depositors in Financial Establishments (KPIDFE) Act. </p><p>It is alleged that the firm had not returned approximately Rs 15 crore to its depositors.</p>.Mediclaim reimbursement to be deducted from accident compensation, says Karnataka HC.<p>On June 20, 2019, the state government passed an interim attachment order of the assets of the company. On January 12, 2024, the special court for KPIDFE cases confirmed the attachment orders.</p><p>Lancer Finance and its proprietor one Rajendra moved the HC contending that the proceedings were initiated only at the instance of the then SP of (Mysuru) Abhinav Khare and the then MP of Mysuru Pratap Simha. On the other hand, the competent authority under KPIDEF Act submitted that the proceedings were initiated after the police submitted the report to the state government. The government after considering the reasons passed the interim attachment of the assets, it was submitted.</p><p>Justice HP Sandesh noted that the proprietor of the firm Rajendra has admitted to the fact that there are 29 cases, of which in 3 cases charge sheets were also filed. </p><p>The court also pointed out from the trial court order that the police had conducted an investigation based on the complaint by one Chitralekha alleging non-payment of Rs 51 lakh deposit amount even after the maturity.</p><p>“Counsel for the appellants would contend that if any depositors claim for any amount, they will make payment. If that is the case, if they make the payment, they can seek appropriate relief before the competent jurisdiction. But, on perusal of the material available on record, based on the report of the Deputy Commissioner, Assistant Commissioner and also the investigation conducted by the Superintendent of Police, the proceedings have been initiated. Hence, I do not find any merit in the appeal to come to any other conclusion,” the court said.</p>