Disposed

M/S Pushpagiri Power Ltd. v. the Registrar of Company

Karnataka HC15 Nov 2022WP/6945/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution seeking mandamus. The petition prayed that the Registrar of Companies consider the petitioner's reply to a show-cause notice and pass appropriate orders within 4 weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directing the respondents to consider the reply furnished by the petitioner to the show-cause notice and pass appropriate orders within 4 weeks.

M/S Pushpagiri Power Ltd. Vs the Registrar of Company — Company and Corporate | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 6945 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 6945 OF 2022 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

M/S PUSHPAGIRI POWER LTD NO 190 19TH C MAIN ROAD 1ST N BLOCK RAJAJINAGAR BENGALURU 560010 REP BY ITS DIRECTOR SRI S VIGNESH SHASHIR

¶9

INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. SAGAR B.B., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANY KARNATAKA STTE MINISTRY OF CORPORTE AFFAIRS GOVT OF INDIA KENDIRYA SADAN BENGALURU 560034

¶15

THE ASSITANT REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES MINSITRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS GOVT OF INDIA

¶16

KENDRIYA SADAN

¶17

¶18

WP No. 6945 of 2022

¶19

BANGALORE 560034

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SMT. ANUPAMA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

¶22

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE NOTICE DATED 11-11-2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-C ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT HEREIN TO CONSIDER THE REPLY DTD.10.12.2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND PAS APPROPRIATE ORDER AFTER GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE PETITIONER. PASS ANY OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION DEEMS FIT GRANT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

ORDER

¶25

Heard Sri. Sagar B.B., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Anupama Hegde, learned counsel appearing for the respondents and have perused the material on record.

¶26

The petitioner is before this Court seeking a direction by issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus to

¶27

¶28

WP No. 6945 of 2022

¶29

consider the reply dated 10.12.2021 furnished by the petitioner

¶30

on the show-cause notice issued against him.

¶31

Learned counsel representing the respondent,

¶32

Smt. Anupama Hegde on instructions would submit that the reply of the petitioner dated 10.12.2021 would be considered and appropriate orders would be passed in accordance with law and the same would be communicated to the petitioner.

¶33

Placing the said submission on record, further delving into the matter at this juncture is not required. Therefore, it would suffice to dispose the petition directing the respondents to consider the reply given by the petitioner to the show-cause notice.

¶34

The reply given by the petitioner shall be considered and appropriate orders be passed in accordance with law within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶35

¶36

WP No. 6945 of 2022

¶37

With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands

¶38

disposed.

¶39

Sd/JUDGE

¶40

SJK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46

M/S Pushpagiri Power Ltd. v. the Registrar of Company

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Pushpagiri Power Ltd. v. the Registrar of Company

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

Dr Sreenivas S Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. K.M. Prasanna Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Dr Venkatesh B Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri K S Arun Kumar Vs the Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

M/S Vinaya Enterprises Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Venkateshwara Enterprises Vs the State of Karnataka