Allowed

Sheelavanth M I v. the Official Liquidator

Karnataka HC22 Apr 2014CA/633/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge of the Karnataka High Court allowed an application to condone delay in filing a review under Section 5 of the Limitation Act set aside Form No.69 denied compensation held entitled to closure compensation but gratuity claim directed to be made before the trust.

What did the court decide?

Application for condonation of delay allowed; applicant held entitled to closure compensation; gratuity claim directed to be made before the Trust.

Sheelavanth M I Vs the Official Liquidator — Insolvency and Bankruptcy | Karnataka HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF APRIL, 2014 BEFORE:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶4

COMPANY APPLICATION Nos.632 AND 633 OF 2014

¶5

¶6

COMPANY PETITION No.166 OF 2001

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Sheelavanth M.I., Son of Late Eshwarappa, Aged about 64 years, Resident of C/o. A.S.Palankar Chawl, Brindavan Layout, Sanmath Marg, Malamaddi, Dharwad.

¶9

… APPLICANT COMMON

¶10

(By Shri. R.B.Contractor, Advocate)

¶11

AND:

¶12

The Official Liquidator, The Mysore Kirloskar Limited, (in liquidation), 12^th Floor, Raheja Towers, M.G.Road, Bengaluru.

¶13

…RESPONDENT COMMON (By Shri. K.S. Mahadevan, Advocate for Official Liquidator ) *****

¶14

¶15

Company Application No.632/2014 is filed under Rule 164 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, praying to set aside Form 69 and issue directions to the official liquidator to re-adjudicate the claims of the applicant by way of admitting closure compensation and gratuity.

¶16

Company Application No.633/2014 is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, read with Rule 164 of the Company [Court] Rules, 1959, praying to condone the 1043 days delay of filing in the above appeal memo by allowing this application.

¶17

These Company Applications coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following: -

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

There is a delay in filing the application. For the reasons

¶20

stated, the application seeking condonation of delay is allowed.

¶21

Insofar as the issue arising for consideration in the

¶22

application filed praying to set aside Form No.69 and to issue direction to the Official Liquidator to re-adjudicate the claim of

¶23

the applicant by allowing closure compensation is concerned, the

¶24

said question is no longer res integra and stands squarely covered by an order of this court in C.A.No.1382 and 1433/2012 dated 21.03.2013. Therefore, the present application is allowed in terms

¶25

¶26

thereof. The applicant is held entitled to the closure compensation which has been denied and insofar as the claim towards gratuity is concerned payable by the Mysore Kirloskar Employees Gratuity Trust, is not available to the applicant and it is for the applicant to make necessary application before the Trust, to recover the said sum. In the event the Trust declines to make payment of gratuity on the premise that the company in liquidation has made over the said sum towards gratuity payment, it is open for the applicant to make necessary application before this Court.

¶27

The above application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶28

Sd/JUDGE

¶29

Sheelavanth M I v. the Official Liquidator

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sheelavanth M I v. the Official Liquidator

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Deco Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Rama Rao Nimbalkar v Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri a M Muniraju Vs State of Karnataka

Golflinks Software Parks Private Limited Vs Nil

M/S Tulsyan Smelters Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Unitech Valdel

Genovo Development Services Limited Vs Nil