Allowed

M/S. Omkar Estates Private Limited v. Smt. T. S. Banu

Karnataka HC5 Apr 2023CA/136/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court, on an application under Section 477(6) of the Companies Act, 1956, directed the respondent widow to deliver agricultural lands held in the name of the deceased Managing Director to the Official Liquidator, holding such properties belong to the company.

What did the court decide?

Direct the respondent to deliver the subject agricultural property peaceably to the Official Liquidator forthwith. The Official Liquidator is directed to take possession by removing whoever is in occu

M/S. Omkar Estates Private Limited Vs Smt. T. S. Banu — Company and Corporate | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - CA No. 136/2021 IN COP NO.192/2011

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶6

CA NO.136/2021 IN COP NO.192/2011

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

M/S. OMKAR ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) REPRESENTED BY OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR, ATTACHED TO HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, CORPORATE BHAVAN, RAHEJA TOWER, NO. 26-27, M.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶9

…APPLICANT

¶10

(BY SRI. SHRISHAIL NAVALGUND., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by SHARADA VANI B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SMT. T. S. BANU W/O. LATE TALLAM V. NAGARAJA, VILLA NO.11, HIMAGIRI MEADOWNS, B.G. ROAD, GOTTIGERE VILLAGE, BENGALURU-560 083. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. JINITA CHATTERJEE.,ADVOCATE AND SRI. HARISHA A S., ADVOCATE) THIS APPLICATION IS FILED SECTION 477(6) OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 READ WITH RULE 9 OF THE COMPANIES (COURT) RULES 1959, PRAYING TO SEEK DIRECTIONS TO THE RESPONDENT TO HAND OVER THE LAND ADMEASURING 37 GUNTAS SITUATED AT SURVEY NO.110/3 & 23/5, HENNAGARA & AMANIKERE VILLAGE LIMITS, AT JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU TO THE OFFICAIL

¶14

2 - CA No. 136/2021 IN COP NO.192/2011

¶15

LIQUIDATOR THROUGH CONVEYING RELEASE DEED/ RELINQUISHMENT DEED.

¶16

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

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Learned counsel for the Official Liquidator submits

¶19

that the subject agricultural lands were brought in the name of Managing Director of the company in question even when section 79A & 79B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 were on the statute book. Where the properties are bought in the name of Managing Director, the same obviously belongs to the ownership of the company; that being the position, the question of widow & heirs of the deceased Managing Director succeeding to the same would not arise; she also points out that the Managing Director vide letter dated 18.05.2013 addressed to the Official Liquidator has stated that the property belongs to the Company and, 7 Co-Directors as well are signatories to this letter.

¶20

Learned counsel for the Official Liquidator further points out that after noting the absence of counsel

¶21

3 - CA No. 136/2021 IN COP NO.192/2011

¶22

representing the respondents in the matter, had on

¶23

01.03.2023 observed as under:

¶24

“Call this matter after two weeks to enable Sri. P.N.Rajeshwara, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner to come and argue.

¶25

On the next date of hearing, the Court shall not await for his appearance.”

¶26

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for

¶27

the OL and having perused the case papers, this Court is broadly in agreement with the stand of the OL. The so called possession of the LRs of the deceased Managing Director is nothing more than impermissible occupation of the property of the company, which has now vested in the OL. Neither the counsel nor the Respondents have participated in the proceedings, nor any material worth mentioning has been placed on record to prima facie vouch their right to continue in the occupation of the subject property.

¶28

In view of the above, the subject Application is favoured; the Respondents are directed to deliver the

¶29

¶30

CA No. 136/2021 IN COP NO.192/2011

¶31

subject property peaceably to the hands of the Official Liquidator, forthwith. The Official Liquidator is also directed to take the possession of the property by removing whoever is in its occupation if necessary by requisitioning the police force.

¶32

The jurisdictional police on being requisitioned shall provide the necessary force for effectuating the above direction and file a compliance report with the Court, on the next date of hearing.

¶33

Ordered accordingly and CA No.136/2021 is disposed off.

¶34

Call this matter immediately after summer vacation 2023.

¶35

Sd/JUDGE

¶36

Bsv

M/S. Omkar Estates Private Limited v. Smt. T. S. Banu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Omkar Estates Private Limited v. Smt. T. S. Banu

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

Sri N Lakshmipathi Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Razia Begum Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Jayamma Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

M/S Tulunadu Finance and Vs Nil

M/S Mukunda Industrial Finance Ltd., (in Liqn.) Vs Nil

M/S W S Telesystems Pvt. Ltd. (in Liqn) Vs Nil