Manappuram Finance Ltd., v. The State of Karnataka

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.VIVEKANANDA WRIT PETITION NO. 31191 OF 2024 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN:

MANAPPURAM FINANCE LTD., A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT MANAPURAM HOUSE, A.O. VALAPAD TRISSUR DISTRICT, KERALA-680 567

HAVING ONE OF ITS BRANCH AT ASWATH NAGAR, NO.46 4TH CROSS, VISWAKARMA TOWER SANJAY NAGAR MAIN ROAD OPP. MARUTHI AUTHORIZED SERVICE STATION, ASWATH NAGAR BENGALURU DISTRICT PIN-560 094 REPRESENTED BY THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER/MANAGER MARIA ITUTHAYA RAJA

…PETITIONER (BY SRI: ANISH JOSE ANTONY, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶1THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶2THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER/ POLICE INSPECTOR BELLARY MAIN ROAD HEBBAL BANGALORE-560 024 (NEAR HEBBAL FLYOVER)

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: DEVARAJ C H, GA FOR R1 AND R2)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE INTERFERENCE BY THE RESPONDENTS IN PETITIONERS BUSINESS AND TAKING ILLEGAL CUSTODY OF THE LADY BRANCH MANAGER SMT NANDANA BY 7 PM, FOR FORCEFULLY SEIZING THE GOLD ARTICLES PLEDGED BY IT COSTUMERS IS ARBITRARY AND IS IN VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS GUARANTEED UNDER ARTICLE 14 AND 19(1)(G) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND ETC.

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.VIVEKANANDA

ORAL ORDER The petitioner - Gold Finance Company is before this Court calling in question the police notice dated 20.11.2024 at Annexure-E, whereby, the petitioner was called upon by the respondent - Police to produce the alleged stolen gold articles before the Investigating Officer and also furnish the CCTV footages of the relevant dates.

¶2When the matter was taken up today for consideration, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the police notice at Annexure-E, the petitioner has produced the stolen gold ornaments before the Investigating Officer and the same has been returned to the petitioner - Company and all the gold ornaments are in the custody of the petitioner as on date.

¶3It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that as and when the Investigating Officer or the concerned Court require the petitioner to produce the gold articles, the petitioner undertakes to produce the same either before the Investigating Officer or before the Jurisdictional Magistrate.

¶4Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Muthoot Fincorp Limited Vs The Station House Officer & Ors.1, wherein, in identical circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has recorded an undertaking given by the similarly situated Gold

1 SLP No,9539/2023 DD 19.02.2024

Finance Company and certain observations have been made therein.

¶5Relying upon the decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Muthoot Fincorp Limited (supra), the petitioner submits that the petitioner - Company is also prepared to file such an undertaking before this Court to the effect that, till the conclusion of the trial, the petitioner - Company would not in any way deal with the alleged stolen gold articles.

¶6In light of the categorical submission of the petitioner, that till the conclusion of proceedings either before the police or before the jurisdictional Court, the petitioner would not deal with the gold ornaments in question, the present writ petition could be disposed of.

¶7Since it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that pursuant to the police notice at Annexure-E, the petitioner has already produced before the Investigating Officer the gold articles and other information sought for, there is no necessity of quashing Annexure-E.

¶8In the result, the writ petition is disposed of taking note of the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner would file an affidavit of undertaking to the effect that, till the conclusion of proceedings before the respondent - Police or before the jurisdictional Court, the petitioner would not in any way deal with the gold ornaments are concerned. The petitioner to file affidavit of undertaking within a period of one week from today.

Sd/- (T.P.VIVEKANANDA) JUDGE BGN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22