Disposed

Sri.R.T. Venkatesh Rao v. the Official Liquidator

Karnataka HC30 Aug 2023CA/239/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Common order on three company applications for confirmation of sale deeds and fixation of boundaries arising from specific performance decrees. Court held prayers do not survive as Civil Court already decreed specific performance.

What did the court decide?

Applications disposed of without granting confirmation/ratification as Civil Court decreed sale deeds; Official Liquidator permitted to fix boundaries and recover unremitted amounts from Civil Court;

Sri.R.T. Venkatesh Rao Vs the Official Liquidator — Company and Corporate | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:31389 CA No. 239 of 2023 C/W CA No. 240 of 2023 CA No. 241 of 2023 IN COP NO.166/2001

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 30^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS

¶7

COMPANY APPLICATION NO.239 OF 2023 C/W

¶8

COMPANY APPLICATION NO.240 OF 2023 COMPANY APPLICATION NO.241 OF 2023

¶9

¶10

COMPANY PETITION NO.166/2001

¶11

IN CA No.239/2023

¶12

BETWEEN:

¶13

SRI R.T.VENKATESH RAO S/O (LATE) R.T.NARAYAN RAO AGED 70 YEARS,

¶14

R/O 'A' BLOCK, 60 FEET ROAD, VIDYANAGAR, HARIHARA-577301 DAVANAGERE DIST

¶15

…APPLICANT

¶16

Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶17

(BY SRI. PRABHU L., & SRI GEORGE CRUZVINU, ADVOCATES)

¶18

AND:

¶19

THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR OF THE MYSORE KIRLOSKAR LTD (IN LIQN) 12TH FLOOR, RAHEJA TOWERS, M G ROAD, BANGALORE-560001

¶20

…RESPONDENT

¶21

(BY SRI.SHRISHAIL NAVALGUND, ADVOCATE)

¶22

THIS COMPANY APPLICATION IS FILED UNDER RULE 6 & 9 OF THE COMPANY (COURT) RULES 1959 PRAYING TO DIRECT

¶23

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:31389 CA No. 239 of 2023 C/W CA No. 240 of 2023 CA No. 241 of 2023 IN COP NO.166/2001

¶24

THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR CONFORMATION/RATIFICATION OF SALE DEED DATED: 30.03.2016 BEFORE THE SUB REGISTER HARIHAR AS MENTIONED IN THE BELOW SCHEDULE PROPERTIES IN FAVOUR OF THE APPLICANTS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.,

¶25

IN CA No.240/2023

¶26

BETWEEN:

¶27

SMT GEETA W/O (LATE) R.T.RAMACHANDRA RAO AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS

¶28

SRI.R.T.SHASHIKANTH S/O (LATE) R.T.RAMACHANDRA RAO AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

¶29

SRI CHANDRAKANTH R.T. S/O (LATE) R.T.RAMACHANDRA RAO AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

¶30

THE APPELLANTS NO.1 TO 3 ARE RESIDING IN R/O NAVARATHNA NILAYA 60FT ROAD, BESIDE GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL VIDYANAGAR, HARIHARA - 577 601 DAVANGERE DISTRICT.

¶31

…APPLICANTS

¶32

(BY SRI. PRABHU L., & SRI GEORGE CRUZVINU, ADVOCATES)

¶33

AND:

¶34

THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR OF THE MYSORE KIRLOSKAR LTD (IN LIQN) 12TH FLOOR, RAHEJA TOWERS, M G ROAD, BANGALORE-560001

¶35

…RESPONDENT

¶36

(BY SRI.SHRISHAIL NAVALGUND, ADVOCATE)

¶37

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:31389 CA No. 239 of 2023 C/W CA No. 240 of 2023 CA No. 241 of 2023 IN COP NO.166/2001

¶38

THIS COMPANY APPLICATION IS FILED UNDER RULE 6 & 9 OF THE COMPANY (COURT) RULES 1959 PRAYING TO DIRECT THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR CONFORMATION/RATIFICATION OF SALE DEED DATED: 30.03.2016 BEFORE THE SUB REGISTER HARIHAR AS MENTIONED IN THE BELOW SCHEDULE PROPERTIES IN FAVOUR OF THE APPLICANTS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.,

¶39

IN CA No.241/2023

¶40

BETWEEN:

¶41

SMT. KOUSALYA SAAKARE W/O LATE HALESHA RAO AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS R/O #703, KOYA BUILDING OPP. VINAYAKA TEMPLE VINAYAKA NAGAR, KODIYAL KUMARAPATTANAM, HAVERI RANEBENNUR, KARNATAKA - 561 123.

¶42

SRI.ARUN KUMAR SAAKARE S/O LATE HALESHA RAO AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/O J 4/8, GRASIM STAFF COLONY KAWALETTU, KUMARAPATTANAM, HAVERI RANEBENNUR, KARNATAKA - 561 123.

¶43

SRI KARAN SAAKARE S/O LATE HALESHA RAO AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/O #703, KOYA BUILDING OPP. VINAYAKA TEMPLE VINAYAKA NAGAR, KODIYAL KUMARAPATTANAM, HAVERI RANEBENNUR, KARNATAKA - 561 123.

¶44

…APPLICANTS

¶45

(BY SRI. PRABHU L., & SRI GEORGE CRUZVINU, ADVOCATES)

¶46

¶47

NC: 2023:KHC:31389 CA No. 239 of 2023 C/W CA No. 240 of 2023 CA No. 241 of 2023 IN COP NO.166/2001

¶48

AND:

¶49

THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR OF THE MYSORE KIRLOSKAR LTD (IN LIQN) 12TH FLOOR, RAHEJA TOWERS, M G ROAD, BANGALORE-560001

¶50

…RESPONDENT

¶51

(BY SRI.SHRISHAIL NAVALGUND, ADVOCATE)

¶52

¶53

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

¶54

ORDER

¶55

These three company applications raise similar issues and therefore, these applications are taken up together and are being disposed of by this common order.

¶56

The applicants herein were the agreement

¶57

holders of various portions of the properties belonging to the Mysore Kirloskar Limited. The applicants had earlier approached the competent Civil Court seeking decree of specific performance of the agreements. During the course

¶58

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:31389 CA No. 239 of 2023 C/W CA No. 240 of 2023 CA No. 241 of 2023 IN COP NO.166/2001

¶59

of the proceedings before the Civil Court, winding up proceedings were also initiated against the company. When this was brought to the notice of the plaintiffs before

¶60

the Civil Court, they filed necessary applications before this Court seeking permission in terms of Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act').

¶61

Learned counsel for the applicants has drawn

¶62

the attention of this Court to the judgment passed by the Senior Civil Judge at Harihara, wherein it is specifically noticed that this Court being Company Court had allowed the applications and permitted the plaintiffs therein to proceed with the case. It is also not disputed that consequent to the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court, the Civil Court has proceeded to execute the sale deeds in terms of the decree passed by the Civil Court.

¶63

After execution of the sale deeds, the applicants herein sought for identification and fixation of the

¶64

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:31389 CA No. 239 of 2023 C/W CA No. 240 of 2023 CA No. 241 of 2023 IN COP NO.166/2001

¶65

boundaries and they also approached the local authority for registration of the Katha in their favour. It appears that the Official Liquidator requested the applicants herein to approach this Court to secure suitable orders/directions in the matter of fixing of the boundaries and therefore, these applications are filed.

¶66

5. However, learned counsel for the Official

¶67

Liquidator has submitted that having regard to the provisions contained in Section 446 of the Act, if permission was already granted by this Court and the Civil Court has proceeded to pass a judgment and decree in favour of the plaintiffs, nothing further survives for consideration in these applications. However, in the matter of fixation of the boundaries, learned counsel for the Official Liquidator would submit that the Official Liquidator will proceed to fix the boundaries in terms of the sale deeds executed in favour of the applicants herein.

¶68

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:31389 CA No. 239 of 2023 C/W CA No. 240 of 2023 CA No. 241 of 2023 IN COP NO.166/2001

¶69

In the light of the above, this Court finds that

¶70

the prayer made in the applications do not survive consideration.

¶71

Consequently, all these applications are disposed of while permitting the Official Liquidator to participate in the matter of fixation of the boundaries in respect of the individual properties in terms of the sale deeds executed by the Civil Court.

¶72

If the Official Liquidator incurs any expenditure

¶73

in the matter of fixation of boundaries, the same shall be borne by the applicants itself.

¶74

However, the learned counsel for the Official Liquidator would also submit that the entire amount that was deposited by the plaintiffs before the Civil Court has not been released in favour of the Official Liquidator. If that is so, the Official Liquidator is permitted to approach the Senior Civil Judge at Harihara in the respective suits

¶75

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:31389 CA No. 239 of 2023 C/W CA No. 240 of 2023 CA No. 241 of 2023 IN COP NO.166/2001

¶76

and reclaim the amounts that were to be paid to the Official Liquidator on behalf of the defendant-Company.

¶77

At this juncture, learned counsel for the applicants has drawn the attention of this Court to the last page of the application which contains a copy of the voucher showing that the applicants have paid certain amount to the Official Liquidator which is said to be the interest on the late payment of the amounts that were required to be paid by the plaintiffs in terms of the judgement and decree passed by the Civil Court.

¶78

However, learned counsel for the Official Liquidator would submit that these claims cannot be looked into at this point of the time, since no records are available with the learned counsel.

¶79

Nevertheless, if the applicants have paid any sum to the Official Liquidator in terms of the voucher as interest, and since this Court has permitted the Official Liquidator to collect the balance amount lying before the

¶80

9 - NC: 2023:KHC:31389 CA No. 239 of 2023 C/W CA No. 240 of 2023 CA No. 241 of 2023 IN COP NO.166/2001

¶81

Civil Court, the Official Liquidator is hereby directed that after collection of the said amount from the Civil Court, the Official Liquidator shall once again look into the matter and consider the claim of the applicants herein in the matter of payment of interest. If the applicants are able to convince the Official Liquidator that the interest could not have been levied since the amounts were already deposited before the Civil Court, necessary action shall be taken by the Official Liquidator accordingly.

Ordered accordingly.

Sd/JUDGE

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13

Sri.R.T. Venkatesh Rao v. the Official Liquidator

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.R.T. Venkatesh Rao 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Agadi Ashok Vs Chief Secretary

V. S. Naik, Vs Registrar, Co-Operative Societies

Sri. Shivappa, Vs the State of Karnataka

M Krishna Murthy Vs Chandra Spinning and Weaving

M Krishna Murthy Vs Chandra Spinning and

Shri. Somashekare Gowda Vs the State of Karnataka