Dismissed

Fugro Survey (India) Pvt. Ltd., v. Dredging Corporation of India Limited

Karnataka HC14 Dec 2020WA/546/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenged the Single Judge's order dismissing a writ petition which sought relief against attempts to constitute two respondents as monopoly undertakings. The Single Judge had held that one respondent was no longer a Government Company following the divestment of its shares by the Central Government. The High Court Bench found the Single Judge justified in dismissing the writ petition

What did the court decide?

Written appeal dismissed; pending applications disposed of accordingly.

Fugro Survey (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dredging… — Company and Corporate | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2020

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY

¶8

WRIT APPEAL No.546 OF 2020 (GM-TEN)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

FUGRO SURVEY (INDIA) PVT. LTD., HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT-FUGRO HOUSE, D-222/30, T.T.C. INDUSTRIAL AREA, MIDC, NERUL, NAVI MUMBAI-400706. REPRESENTED BY - SHRI H.C.ANANT KESHAV, FINANCE CONTROLLER.

¶11

… APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI. RAJEEV K. PANDAY, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

DREDGING CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED, PROJECT OFFICE, MANGALORE, KARNATAKA-575010. REPRESENTED BY PROJECT IN-CHARGE.

¶15

NEW MANGALORE PORT TRUST PANAMBUR, MANGALORE-575010 D.K DISTRICT, KARNATAKA THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN.

¶16

¶17

UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF SHIPPING, PARIVAHAN BHAVAN, NO.1, PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW DELHI-110001.

¶18

… RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. M.M.SWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR CAVEATOR RESPONDENT NO.1; ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL - SERVED)

¶20

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER AND JUDGMENT DATED 23.10.2020 PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NO.11655/2020 (GM-TEN) PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON’BLE COURT.

¶21

THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, NAGARATHNA, J. , DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

The appellant herein has assailed the order of learned Single Judge dated 23.10.2020 passed in Writ Petition No.11655/2020. By the said order, learned Single Judge recorded the submission of respondent No.1 – Company to the effect that by resolution dated 21.10.2019, the Union of India (respondent No.3) has divested respondent No.1 – Company and it is no more a Government Company. Consequently, the writ petition

¶24

¶25

was dismissed. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred this appeal.

¶26

On the last occasion, when the matter was

¶27

listed before this Court i.e., on 27.11.2020, we directed learned counsel for respondent No.1 to file the relevant documents in support of his submission that respondent No.1 is not a public sector undertaking.

¶28

Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that statement of objections has been filed enclosing the documents to demonstrate the fact that the Central Government was holding 73.47% of the share capital in respondent No.1 – Company. That by share purchase agreement dated 08.03.2019, the Government of India has sold all its shares in favour of the purchasers to the tune of Rs.10,49,17,26,630/-. In support of the said averment, share purchase agreement dated 08.03.2019 has been filed. It is also stated that respondent No.1 – Company is no longer a Government Company and in support of the said statement, documents are produced which are extracts from the Company/LLP Master Data

¶29

¶30

filed before the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (Annexure ‘R3’). Learned counsel for respondent No.1 also submitted that in the schedule-wise list of Central Public Sector Enterprises, name of respondent No.1 does not find a place. In the circumstances, learned counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that what was urged by respondent No.1 before learned Single Judge is true and correct and is supported by documents as it was contended that it was no longer a Government Company. Therefore, there is no merit in the appeal.

¶31

By way of response, learned counsel for the appellant sought to contend that the shares of the Central Government have been divested to certain port Trusts which are nothing but Central Government entities. This is evident from Annexure ‘R1’. Therefore, respondent No.1 must be construed to be a Government Company and the prayer sought for by the appellant herein still survives.

¶32

We have perused the share purchase agreement dated 08.03.2019 and the other documents which have been produced in support of the statement of

¶33

¶34

objections filed by respondent No.1 herein and also the document at Annexure ‘R2’, which states that respondent No.1 is no longer a Central Public Sector Enterprise (CPSE). Therefore, we find that learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing the writ petition. Also, no other entity is a party in this matter. Therefore, no consideration of the case of the petitioner against the said entities can be made in this case. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the appeal.

¶35

Appeal is hence, dismissed.

¶36

In view of the disposal of the appeal, pending applications do not survive for consideration and they stand disposed of accordingly.

¶37

Sd/JUDGE

¶38

Sd/JUDGE

¶39

sma

Fugro Survey (India) Pvt. Ltd., v. Dredging Corporation of India Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Fugro Survey (India) Pvt. Ltd., v. Dredging Corporation of India Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. K N Vandana Vs Bangalore Development Authority

Dr. C. R. Rakesh Vs Dr. B. K. Triveni

Mrs Anusree Chandrahasan Vs Rajesh Kumar R

The Secretary Vs Lakshmaiah

Mr Tamil Selvam Vs Union of India

Bharath Kumar S Vs Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board