Disposed

Sri Rajaram Khandige v. the Official Liquidator of M/S Karnataka Financial

Karnataka HC18 Jul 2012CA/881/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed an application seeking modification of an earlier order to expunge a statement about a respondent being in charge of company affairs, clarifying it was not a formal finding.

What did the court decide?

Company Application No. 881/2012 disposed of with clarification that the previous observation was not a formal finding.

Sri Rajaram Khandige Vs the Official Liquidator of… — Company and Corporate | Karnataka HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶3

DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JULY 2012

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA

¶6

COMPANY APPLICATION NO. 881/2012

¶7

IN COMPANY APPLICATION NO. 972/2005 IN COMPANY PETITION NO. 178/2004

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI RAJARAM KHANDIGE, SON OF LATE DR K.K. BHAT, RESIDING AT NO. 28, 5TH BLOCK, 5TH CROSS, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE – 560 034

¶10

… APPLICANT

¶11

(BY SRI ADEEL & P. MANMOHAN, ADV. FOR SRI P. M. VASUDEV)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR OF M/S. KARNATAKA FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED (IN LIQN.), ATTACHED TO THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, IV FLOOR, ‘D & F’ WING, KENDRIYA SADAN,

¶14

¶15

KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE – 560 034

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SRI K.S.MAHADEVAN & V.JAYARAM, ADVS. FOR OL)

¶18

THIS COMPANY APPLICATION FILED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT UNDER RULE 5, SECTION 454 OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, WITH RULE 9 OF THE COMPANY COURT RULES 1959, PRAYING THAT FOR THE REASONS STATED THEREIN THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO MODIFY THE ORDER DATED 29.03.2012 BY DELETING/EXPUNGING PARA 8 IN THE SAID ORDERS.

¶19

THIS APPLICATION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The instant application has been filed seeking modification of

¶22

the order dated 29.03.2012. The reasons putforth in the application is that the observation made in Para-8 of the order disposing the application would affect the interest of the applicant herein, since the observation stating that the 5th respondent was incharge of the affairs of the company would prejudice the other proceedings which are pending. It would be assumed therein as if the 5th respondent was

¶23

¶24

incharge of the affairs of the company. Hence, it is prayed the same be modified to the said extent.

¶25

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and

¶26

having perused the order, it is seen that from the very expression which has been used in the said paragraph, it is not a finding rendered by this Court that 5th respondent was incharge of the affairs on appreciation of evidence available on record. Having arrived at the conclusion that cost is to be paid in that case, only for the purpose of fixing responsibility to deposit the amount, the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant therein i.e. the counsel for the Official Liquidator was accepted and a direction was issued to the 5th respondent to deposit the amount. Hence, it is clarified that the same shall not be treated as a finding with regard to the fact as to whether the 5th respondent was incharge of the affairs of the company. That aspect shall be considered on its own merits in appropriate proceedings. Having made the above clarification, I see no reason to modify the order which has been passed.

¶27

¶28

With the above observations, Company Application No.

¶29

881/2012 is disposed of.

¶30

Sd/JUDGE

¶31

Sri Rajaram Khandige v. the Official Liquidator of M/S Karnataka Financial

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Rajaram Khandige v. the Official Liquidator of M/S Karnataka Financial

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Vinay S Pothnis Vs Sri Anil B S

Sri. Chandrakanth Shet Vs Sri. Shivaprasad Kotian

M/S Indian Institute of Hardware Technology Vs M/S Laqshya Media Private Limited

Sri Mari Joseph Vs Sri B Krishnappa

Karnataka State Fertilizers Seeds & Pesticides Vs Union of India

The Friends Recreation Association Vs the State of Karnataka