Allowed

S S Mudbal (Mudaral) v. the Official Liquidator

Karnataka HC21 Jan 2014CA/634/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court allowed multiple Company Applications filed under Rule 164 of Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, with condonation of delay. The Court held that the substantive issue regarding closure compensation was settled by a prior order and granted entitlement to such compensation while clarifying that gratuity claims must be pursued before the Employees Gratuity Trust.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of delay allowed; applications to set aside Form 69 allowed on terms that applicants are entitled to closure compensation denied to them.

S S Mudbal (Mudaral) Vs the Official Liquidator — Company and Corporate | Karnataka HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 21^st DAY OF JANUARY 2014 BEFORE:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY COMPANY APPLICATION Nos.633 AND 634 OF 2013

¶4

AND

¶5

COMPANY APPLICATION Nos.679 AND 680 OF 2013 COMPANY APPLICATION Nos.695 AND 696 OF 2013 COMPANY APPLICATION Nos.697 AND 698 OF 2013 COMPANY APPLICATION Nos.701 AND 702 OF 2013 COMPANY APPLICATION Nos.808 AND 810 OF 2013 COMPANY APPLICATION Nos.821 AND 823 OF 2013 COMPANY APPLICATION Nos.826 AND 828 OF 2013 COMPANY APPLICATION Nos.829 AND 831 OF 2013 COMPANY APPLICATION Nos.849 AND 850 OF 2013 COMPANY APPLICATION Nos.873 AND 874 OF 2013 COMPANY APPLICATION Nos.875 AND 876 OF 2013 COMPANY APPLICATION Nos.906 AND 908 OF 2013 COMPANY APPLICATION Nos.913 AND 914 OF 2013 COMPANY APPLICATION Nos.931 AND 933 OF 2013 COMPANY APPLICATION Nos.935 AND 937 OF 2013 COMPANY APPLICATION Nos.936 AND 938 OF 2013 COMPANY APPLICATION Nos.949 AND 950 OF 2013 COMPANY APPLICATION Nos.951 AND 952 OF 2013

¶6

¶7

COMPANY APPLICATION Nos.957 AND 958 OF 2013 COMPANY APPLICATION Nos.976 AND 978 OF 2013 COMPANY APPLICATION Nos.980 AND 982 OF 2013 COMPANY APPLICATION Nos.983 AND 984 OF 2013 COMPANY APPLICATION Nos.987 AND 988 OF 2013 COMPANY APPLICATION Nos.989 AND 990 OF 2013

¶8

COMPANY APPLICATION Nos.1017 AND 1018 OF 2013 COMPANY APPLICATION Nos.1023 AND 1024 OF 2013 COMPANY APPLICATION Nos.1031 AND 1032 OF 2013 COMPANY APPLICATION Nos.1039 AND 1040 OF 2013 COMPANY APPLICATION Nos.1083 AND 1088 OF 2013

¶9

¶10

COMPANY PETITION No.166 OF 2001

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

S.S. Mudbal (Mudaral), Son of Late Shankarappa, Aged about 58 years, Resident of Shankarappa House, Kumbar Oni, Harihar – 577 601, Davanagere District.

¶13

… APPLICANT Common in C.A.Nos.633 and 634/2013

¶14

K.S. Kundargi, Son of Late Seetharam Kundargi, Aged: 65 years,

¶15

¶16

Resident of Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, P.B.Road, Harihar.

¶17

… APPLICANT Common in C.A.Nos.679 and 680/2013

¶18

Y. Kariyappa, Son of Late Y. Neelappa, Aged about 66 years, Resident of H.No.250, Cibara Circle, River Road, Harihar, Davangere District.

¶19

… APPLICANT Common in C.A.Nos.695 and 696/13 M.M. Kummar, Son of Manappa, Aged about 68 years, Resident H.No.2035/228, Anjaneya Badavane, 12Cross, Davanagere, Davanagere District.

¶20

… APPLICANT Common in C.A.Nos.697 and 698/13 Tukaram K Patil, Son of Late Kallappa Patil Age 62 years, Old Harlapura, Guttu PO, Harihar.

¶21

… APPLICANT Common in C.A.Nos.701 and 702/13

¶22

Jagannatha Rao, Son of Late Vittal Rao, Aged about 54 years, 2^nd Cross, 2^nd Floor, Seetaram Nilaya,

¶23

¶24

Ravindra Nagar, Shimoga.

¶25

… APPLICANT Common in C.A.Nos.808 and 810/13

¶26

A.R. Puttappa, Son of S.D.Rangappa, Aged about 65 years, Old Harlapura, Guttur Post, Harihar – 577 601.

¶27

… APPLICANT Common in C.A.Nos.821 and 823/13

¶28

K.B. Badarinath, Son of Late K.V. Bheem Rao, Aged about 65 years, C/o.Tourist Lodge, Near A.A.Circle, Shimoga.

¶29

… APPLICANT Common in C.A.Nos.826 and 828/13

¶30

C.N.Shitole, Son of Late Narayan Rao, Aged about 65 years, Old Harlapur, Guttur Post, Harihar – 577601.

¶31

… APPLICANT Common in C.A.Nos.829 and 831/13

¶32

N.B.Rotti, Son of Late Babu Rao, Aged about 62 years, C/o. Sameer Deshpande Compound Houce No.127, opposite Tajasaswi Nagar Garden, Dharwad.

¶33

¶34

… APPLICANT Common in C.A.Nos.849 and 850/13

¶35

S. Prabhakar Rao, Son of Late S. Kalingarao, Aged about 61 years, C/o. Hariprasad Bhat, No.15, Ganesh Nilaya, 4^th Cross, Hosamane Bhadavane, Shimoga.

¶36

… APPLICANT Common in C.A.Nos.873 and 874/13

¶37

G.S. Kadi, Son of Late Shivappa, Aged about 59 years, C/o. S.V.Neelavani, 1^st Cross, Raj Nagar, Behind Murughamath, Dharwad.

¶38

… APPLICANT Common in C.A.Nos.875 and 876/13

¶39

P.N. Deshpande, Son of Late Narayan Rao Deshpande, Age: 65 years, ‘Panchavati’ Laxmi Narayana, L.S. Tank Road, Manjunath Pura Malamaddi, Dharwad.

¶40

… APPLICANT Common in C.A.Nos.906 and 908/13

¶41

S.D. Budni, Son of Late Durgappa, Aged about 61 years, Resident of Near Kambimutt House, Saraswatgipur, Dharwad – 580 001.

¶42

¶43

… APPLICANT Common in C.A.Nos.913 and 914/13

¶44

B.C.Morabad, Son of Late Chinnappa Morabad, Aged about 61 years, Ubkal Post, Korvi Oni, Hubli.

¶45

… APPLICANT Common in C.A.Nos.931 and 933/13

¶46

B.Y. Uppar, Son of Late Yellappa, Age: 60 years, Mugad Post, Near Nagalavi Road, Mandi hal, Taluk and District Dharwad.

¶47

… APPLICANT Common in C.A.Nos.935 and 937/13

¶48

F.M. Hadapad, Son of Late Mahadevappa, Aged about 58 years, Resident of Basaveshwara Nagar, Topalagatti Ramalingeshwar Nagar, Gokul Road, Hubli.

¶49

… APPLICANT Common in C.A.Nos.936 and 938/13 M.N.Surpali (Shurpali), Son of Narayan Rao G Surpali, Age: 55 years, Pratima Aparment Malamaddi, Kabbur Road, Dharwad.

¶50

… APPLICANT Common in C.A.Nos.949 and 950/13

¶51

¶52

Horakeri I.G. Son of Late Gadigeppa, Aged about 70 years, Amangala, Jiddi Oni, Diddige, Hubli.

¶53

… APPLICANT Common in C.A.Nos.951 and 952/13

¶54

Anandamurthy, Son of Late Ningappa, Aged about 69 years, 1^st Main, 1^st Cross, Malatesh Building, Shimoga Extension, Harihar.

¶55

… APPLICANT Common in C.A.Nos.957 and 958/13

¶56

A.H.Madakavi, Son of Late Hanumath Rao, Age: 59 years, H.No.66/1, Trinity Layout, Near Mayur Nagar, Old Hubli – 580 024.

¶57

… APPLICANT Common in C.A.Nos.976 and 978/13

¶58

S.M. Doddamani, 65 years, Son of Late Mallappa, Savadatti Oni, Unkal, Hubli.

¶59

… APPLICANT Common in C.A.Nos.980 and 982/13

¶60

I.B. Pujar, Son of Bheemappa, Age: 53 years, Goudar Oni Navalur PO,

¶61

¶62

Dharwad.

¶63

… APPLICANT Common in C.A.Nos.983 and 984/13

¶64

A.A.Jankins, Son of Late A.G.Jankins, Aged about 57 years, ESI Road, Gandhi Nagar, Harihar.

¶65

… APPLICANT Common in C.A.Nos.987 and 988/13

¶66

S.B. Suryavanshi, Son of Late Basappa, Aged about 62 years, Unkal Post, Durgad Oni, Hubli.

¶67

… APPLICANT Common in C.A.Nos.989 and 990/13

¶68

V.D.Bagalkoti, Son of Late Dvea Putreppa, Aged about 65 years, Michginni Compound, Opposite Charch Karwar Road, Hubli.

¶69

… APPLICANT Common in C.A.Nos.1017 and 1018/13

¶70

T.R. Hanchinal, Son of Late Rudraiah, Age: 70 years, Tejaswi Nagar, Kalagatagi Road, Bavandevara Gudi, Dharwad.

¶71

… APPLICANT Common in C.A.Nos.1023 and 1024/13

¶72

¶73

V.G. Nadigar, Son of Ganapathi Rao, Aged about 58 years, Resident of Shambavi Building, Sridevi Nagar, Y.S. Colony, Dharwad – 580 001.

¶74

… APPLICANT Common in C.A.Nos.1031 and 1032/13

¶75

H.Y. Valikar, Son of Late Yallappa, Aged about 63 years, Resident of Anjaneya Temple, Nearest Manguhgi, Managundi, Dharwad.

¶76

… APPLICANT Common in C.A.Nos.1039 and 1040/13

¶77

J.H. Imamsab, Son of Late Chamansab, Aged about 67 years, 6^th Cross, Venkoba Colony, Old Betur Road, Davanagere – 577 001. … APPLICANT Common in C.A.Nos.1083 and 1088/13 (By Shri. R.B. Contractor, Advocate) AND:

¶78

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

¶79

¶80

Company Application Nos. 633, 679, 695, 697, 701, 951, 1031/2013 filed under Rule 164 read with Rules 6 and 9 of the Companies [Court] Rules, 1959, praying to issue directions to the Official Liquidator to re-adjudicate the matter to set-aside the Form-69 by way of allowing closure compensation.

¶81

Company Application Nos.808, 821, 826, 829, 849, 873, 875, 906, 913, 931, 935, 936, 949, 957, 976, 980, 983, 987,989, 1017, 1023, 1039, 1083 /2013 filed under Rule 164 read with Rules 6 and 9 of the Companies [Court] Rules, 1959, praying to issue directions to the Official Liquidator to re-adjudicate the matter to set-aside the Form-69 and admit and distribute the closure compensation.

¶82

IN C.A.No.634/2013

¶83

This Company Application is filed under Rule 164 of Company Court Rules 1959 read with Section 5 of Limitation Act, praying to condone the 1160 days delay of filing in the above appeal.

¶84

IN C.A.No.680/2013

¶85

This Company Application is filed under Rule 164 of Company Court Rules 1959 read with Section 5 of Limitation Act, praying to condone the 862 days delay of filing in the above appeal.

¶86

IN C.A.No.696/2013

¶87

This Company Application is filed under Rule 164 of Company Court Rules 1959 read with Section 5 of Limitation Act, praying to condone the 875 days delay of filing in the above appeal.

¶88

¶89

IN C.A.No.698/2013

¶90

This Company Application is filed under Rule 164 of Company Court Rules 1959 read with Section 5 of Limitation Act, praying to condone the 941 days delay of filing in the above appeal.

¶91

IN C.A.No.702/2013

¶92

This Company Application is filed under Rule 164 of Company Court Rules 1959 read with Section 5 of Limitation Act, praying to condone the 805 days delay of filing in the above appeal.

¶93

IN C.A.No.810/2013

¶94

This Company Application is filed under Rule 164 of Company Court Rules 1959 read with Section 5 of Limitation Act, praying to condone the 1157 days delay of filing in the above appeal memo by allowing this application.

¶95

IN C.A.No.823/2013

¶96

This Company Application is filed under Rule 164 of Company Court Rules 1959 read with Section 5 of Limitation Act, praying to condone the 938 days delay of filing in the above appeal memo by allowing this application.

¶97

IN C.A.No.828/2013

¶98

This Company Application is filed under Rule 164 of Company Court Rules 1959 read with Section 5 of Limitation Act, praying to condone the 1020 days delay of filing in the above appeal memo by allowing this application.

¶99

¶100

IN C.A.No.831/2013

¶101

This Company Application is filed under Rule 164 of Company Court Rules 1959 read with Section 5 of Limitation Act, praying to condone the 907 days delay of filing in the above appeal memo by allowing this application.

¶102

IN C.A.No.850/2013

¶103

This Company Application is filed under Rule 164 of Company Court Rules 1959 read with Section 5 of Limitation Act, praying to condone the 722 days delay of filing in the above appeal memo by allowing this application.

¶104

IN C.A.No.874/2013

¶105

This Company Application is filed under Rule 164 of Company Court Rules 1959 read with Section 5 of Limitation Act, praying to condone the 596 days delay of filing in the above appeal memo by allowing this application.

¶106

IN C.A.No.876/2013

¶107

This Company Application is filed under Rule 164 of Company Court Rules 1959 read with Section 5 of Limitation Act, praying to condone the 772 days delay of filing in the above appeal memo by allowing this application.

¶108

IN C.A.No.908/2013

¶109

This Company Application is filed under Rule 164 of Company Court Rules 1959 read with Section 5 of Limitation Act, praying to condone the 869 days delay of filing in the above appeal memo by allowing this application.

¶110

¶111

IN C.A.No.914/2013

¶112

This Company Application is filed under Rule 164 of Company Court Rules 1959 read with Section 5 of Limitation Act, praying to condone the 855 days delay of filing in the above appeal memo by allowing this application.

¶113

IN C.A.No.933/2013

¶114

This Company Application is filed under Rule 164 of Company Court Rules 1959 read with Section 5 of Limitation Act, praying to condone the 853 days delay of filing in the above appeal memo by allowing this application.

¶115

IN C.A.No.937/2013

¶116

This Company Application is filed under Rule 164 of Company Court Rules 1959 read with Section 5 of Limitation Act, praying to condone the 775 days delay of filing in the above appeal memo by allowing this application.

IN C.A.No.938/2013

IN C.A.No.950/2013

This Company Application is filed under Rule 164 of Company Court Rules 1959 read with Section 5 of Limitation Act, praying to condone the 797 days delay of filing in the above appeal memo by allowing this application.

¶121

¶122

IN C.A.No.952/2013

¶123

This Company Application is filed under Rule 164 of Company Court Rules 1959 read with Section 5 of Limitation Act, praying to condone the 792 days delay of filing in the above appeal.

IN C.A.No.958/2013

IN C.A.No.978/2013

IN C.A.No.982/2013

This Company Application is filed under Rule 164 of Company Court Rules 1959 read with Section 5 of Limitation Act, praying to condone the 655 days delay of filing in the above appeal memo by allowing this application.

¶130

IN C.A.No.984/2013

¶131

This Company Application is filed under Rule 164 of Company Court Rules 1959 read with Section 5 of Limitation Act, praying to condone the 703 days delay of filing in the above appeal memo by allowing this application.

¶132

¶133

IN C.A.No.988/2013

¶134

This Company Application is filed under Rule 164 of Company Court Rules 1959 read with Section 5 of Limitation Act, praying to condone the 939 days delay of filing in the above appeal memo by allowing this application.

¶135

IN C.A.No.990/2013

¶136

This Company Application is filed under Rule 164 of Company Court Rules 1959 read with Section 5 of Limitation Act, praying to condone the 848 days delay of filing in the above appeal memo by allowing this application.

IN C.A.No.1018/2013

IN C.A.No.1024/2013

IN C.A.No.1032/2013

This Company Application is filed under Rule 164 of Company Court Rules 1959 read with Section 5 of Limitation Act, praying to condone the 844 days delay of filing in the above appeal.

¶143

¶144

IN C.A.No.1040/2013

¶145

This Company Application is filed under Rule 164 of Company Court Rules 1959 read with Section 5 of Limitation Act, praying to condone the 1074 days delay of filing in the above appeal memo by allowing this application.

¶146

IN C.A.No.1088/2013

¶147

This Company Application is filed under Rule 164 of Company Court Rules 1959 read with Section 5 of Limitation Act, praying to condone the 985 days delay of filing in the above appeal memo by allowing this application.

¶148

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

¶149

O R D E R

¶150

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

¶151

stated, the applications seeking condonation of delay are allowed.

¶152

Insofar as the issue arising for consideration in the

¶153

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

¶154

the applicants by allowing closure compensation is concerned, the

¶155

said question is no longer res integra and stands squarely covered

¶156

by an order of this court in C.A.No.1382 and 1433/2012 dated

¶157

¶158

21.03.2013. Therefore, the present applications are allowed in terms thereof. The applicants are 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 applicants and it is for the applicants to make necessary applications 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 applicants to make necessary applications before this Court.

¶159

The above applications stand disposed of accordingly.

¶160

JUDGE

¶161

S S Mudbal (Mudaral) v. the Official Liquidator

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S S Mudbal (Mudaral) 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

Mr P J Damian Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Sri Mahadi Hussain S/O Late Mushtaq Ali Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Venkateshwara Developers Vs Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike

Tukaramsa Badi Dead by Lrs Vs the Official Liquidator

Smt v Chandra Manikyavelu Vs Smt Indira Viveknand

Smt. Susheela H. Deshpande Vs M/S Karnataka State Textiles Mill Ltd.