JUDGMENT 1. Heard Sri Naveed Ahmed, counsel appearing for Sri Noormohammed, for the appellants. 2. In all these appeals, the appellants were not the parties in the proceeding initiated by the competent authority under sec. 5 of the Karnataka Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act, 2004, in the Special Court. On 7/3/2022 the Special Court passed an order in the proceeding pending before it permitting the competent authority to attach the properties standing in the name of the first respondent company. Appellants claim to be lessees under the second respondent, i.e., Mohammed Mansoor Khan who is said to be the Managing Director of the first respondent company. Copies of the lease deeds are produced. These lease deeds indicate that the properties said to be in possession of each appellant were leased by the second respondent in his individual capacity. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that each appellant has paid a certain sum of money to the second respondent towards security deposit in connection with the lease and therefore the order of attachment passed by the Special Court has fettered their hands from recovering the money from the second respondent. In this view, they are aggrieved persons and therefore they may be permitted to prefer these appeals. 3. It is not possible to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants. The lease deeds show that the second respondent executed lease deeds in his individual capacity in favour of the appellants having received different sums of money from each appellant towards security deposit. Strictly speaking the appellants have to recover money from the second respondent. However, the bank statement of each appellant shows that security deposit was actually remitted to the account of the first respondent in the proceedings before the Special Court. If the lease deeds were executed by the second respondent in the proceedings in the Special Court, the appellants have to proceed against the second respondent/lessor individually and therefore looked from that angle, the appellants are not aggrieved persons to prefer these appeals. The appellants have already instituted a suit against Mohammed Mansoor Khan for injunction. Hence, their applications cannot be considered for granting leave. Applications are therefore dismissed. 4. The appellants have already instituted a suit against Mohammed Mansoor Khan for injunction. Hence, their applications cannot be considered for granting leave. Applications are therefore dismissed. 4. Since it is pointed out that cheque in relation to making payment of security deposit was drawn in the name of the first respondent before the Special Court, the appellants herein may approach the competent authority under sec. 8 of the Karnataka Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act, 2004. Liberty is given to the appellants to approach the competent authority. If the competent authority finds that the monies that the appellants are entitled to get back from respondent No.2 fall within the category of 'other liabilities' as envisaged in sec. 8, their applications may be considered. In this view, appeals are dismissed.