<p>The special court for cases registered under Karnataka Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act, 2004 has cancelled the interim order of attachment issued by the government against properties held by former minister R Roshan Baig in IMA scam.</p>.<p>Special court judge Shridhar Gopalakrishna Bhat dismissed the application filed by the Competent Authority for confirmation of the July 6, 2021 interim attachment order, observing that it was not in consonance with section 3 of KPIDFE Act.</p>.<p>The July 6, 2021 attachment order listed properties declared by Roshan Baig in his election affidavit on April 20, 2018. These included Baig’s 33 per cent share in a commercial building (Rs 96.8 lakh) on Hosur Road which was developed under a joint development agreement with a builder; another commercial building on Residency Road (Rs 76.6 lakh); inherited residential properties on Sanders Road and Cleveland Road (Rs 3.6 crore); and three sites in HBR Layout, Fraser Town and Cleveland Road (Rs 8.9 crore).</p>.<p>This apart, Rs 2 crore in the accounts maintained by Baig and his family members was also provisionally attached.</p>.<p>The court said while there is no doubt of the presence of Roshan Baig, being an MLA and the minister, with the main accused Mohammed Mansoor Khan on various public platforms, could have instilled confidence among the people in the activities of IMA.</p>.<p>However, it cannot be held that Roshan Baig had acted as the promoter of the company, the court said.</p>.<p>The court further noted that no documents have been produced to show that the unsecured loan amounts from IMA had been transferred to Roshan Baig. In regard to the inclusion of five properties, in the name of Baig’s wife and son, the court said that it is not the case of the Competent Authority that those properties were indeed acquired by Baig and that his wife and son are the persons falling under section 3 of the KPIDFE Act.</p>.<p>“Therefore, prima facie, the attachment of the said properties is contrary to the provisions of section 3 of the Act. It appears that the government has attached the said properties without any proper enquiry and reasons,” the court said.</p>
<p>The special court for cases registered under Karnataka Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act, 2004 has cancelled the interim order of attachment issued by the government against properties held by former minister R Roshan Baig in IMA scam.</p>.<p>Special court judge Shridhar Gopalakrishna Bhat dismissed the application filed by the Competent Authority for confirmation of the July 6, 2021 interim attachment order, observing that it was not in consonance with section 3 of KPIDFE Act.</p>.<p>The July 6, 2021 attachment order listed properties declared by Roshan Baig in his election affidavit on April 20, 2018. These included Baig’s 33 per cent share in a commercial building (Rs 96.8 lakh) on Hosur Road which was developed under a joint development agreement with a builder; another commercial building on Residency Road (Rs 76.6 lakh); inherited residential properties on Sanders Road and Cleveland Road (Rs 3.6 crore); and three sites in HBR Layout, Fraser Town and Cleveland Road (Rs 8.9 crore).</p>.<p>This apart, Rs 2 crore in the accounts maintained by Baig and his family members was also provisionally attached.</p>.<p>The court said while there is no doubt of the presence of Roshan Baig, being an MLA and the minister, with the main accused Mohammed Mansoor Khan on various public platforms, could have instilled confidence among the people in the activities of IMA.</p>.<p>However, it cannot be held that Roshan Baig had acted as the promoter of the company, the court said.</p>.<p>The court further noted that no documents have been produced to show that the unsecured loan amounts from IMA had been transferred to Roshan Baig. In regard to the inclusion of five properties, in the name of Baig’s wife and son, the court said that it is not the case of the Competent Authority that those properties were indeed acquired by Baig and that his wife and son are the persons falling under section 3 of the KPIDFE Act.</p>.<p>“Therefore, prima facie, the attachment of the said properties is contrary to the provisions of section 3 of the Act. It appears that the government has attached the said properties without any proper enquiry and reasons,” the court said.</p>