Allowed

Ekanath a Irkal v. the Official Liquidator of

Karnataka HC18 Jan 2023CA/356/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the application deleting a specific property from the liquidated company's list and restrained the Official Liquidator from interfering with the applicant's possession.

What did the court decide?

Direction issued to delete the subject property from the List of Company properties and restrain the Official Liquidator from interfering with the Applicant's possession.

Ekanath a Irkal Vs the Official Liquidator of — Karnataka HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

¶6

CA NO.356 OF 2022

¶7

¶8

COP NO. 149 OF 1998

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

EKANATH A IRKAL, S/O SHRI ARJUNASA IRKAL, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RESIDING AT VITTALPETH, OLD HUBLI -580 024.

¶11

...APPLICANT

¶12

(BY SRI.DEEPAK, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR OF KARNATAKA STATE TEXTILES MILLS LTD. (IN LIQN.) ATTACHED TO HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, 12^TH FLOOR, RAHEJA TOWERS, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶15

… RESPONDENT (BY SRI.K S MAHADEVAN, ADVOCATE FOR OL)

¶16

THIS APPLICATION IS FILED UNDER RULE 6 & 9 OF THE COMPANIES (COURT) RULES, 1959 PRAYING TO DIRECT THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR TO DELETE PROPERTY BEARING CTS NO.98, WARD NO.III, C TENURE ABUTTING KARWAR ROAD AND OLD UNKAL ROAD, MARIAN TIMMASAGAR VILLAGE, HUBLI TALUKA, MORE FULLY DESCRIBED IN THE SCHEDULE, FROM THE LIST OF PROPERTIES STATED TO BELONG TO THE COMPANY IN LIQUIDATION & ETC.,

¶17

¶18

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

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The essential grievance of the Applicant is against

¶21

the subject property being treated as belonging to the ownership of Company in winding up. He seeks an order for removal of the subject property from the List of properties of the Company. He also seeks a direction to the Official Liquidator and his men restraining them from interfering with the peaceful possession & enjoyment of the subject property.

¶22

After service of notice, the Official Liquidator

¶23

having entered appearance through his Panel Counsel opposes the Application by filing the Statement of Objections on 28.11.2022. Learned Panel Counsel resists

¶24

the case of Applicant contending that the subject property rightly is enlisted as that of the Company in winding up and therefore, no relief can be granted to the Applicant.

¶25

¶26

Having heard the learned counsel for the

¶27

parties an having perused the case papers, this Court is inclined to grant indulgence in the matter as under and for the following reasons:

¶28

a) The predecessor in title of the Applicant had

¶29

bought the subject property vide registered Sale Deed dated 21.12.1933 and the same came to the exclusive ownership of the Applicant herein vide Judgment & Decree founded on a compromise in RSA No.1089/1995. The Applicant got back the subject property from the Lessee State Government on the basis of a Judgment & Decree dated 20.12.2003 in O.S.No.260/2002, challenge to which came to be negatived in RA No.26/2007 disposed off on 20.04.2010. The Decree came to be executed and the possession of the property has been restored to the Applicant in Execution No.38/2011.

¶30

b) It is relevant to state that to the said Suit, the

¶31

Appeal and Execution Case, the Official Liquidator representing the Company in winding up was a

¶32

¶33

Defendant/the Respondent/Judgment Debtor, is not disputed. The lease in question was executed long before the Petition for winding up of the Company was presented. If the lease comes to an end by determination or termination, the leasehold cannot be treated as the property of lessee – Company at all.

¶34

c) The vehement submission of learned Panel

¶35

Counsel for the Official Liquidator that the continuation of the Suit sand leave of the Official Liquidator was impermissible and therefore, the Judgment & Decree followed by the proceedings for their execution need to be treated as null & void, is bit difficult to countenance inasmuch as, the Official Liquidator of the Company in question was the 2^nd Defendant to the Suit in O.S.260/2002 and 2^nd JDr in Execution Case No.38/2011. Even otherwise in the facts of the case, the requirement of leave cannot be treated as a sine qua non regardless of justice of the case. An argument to the

¶36

¶37

contrary would undermine the confidence of right thinking people in the judicial process.

¶38

In the above circumstances, this Application is allowed; a direction issues to delete the subject property from the List of Company properties and further, a restraint order issues against the Official Liquidator & his men from interfering with Applicant’s possession & enjoyment of the subject property, exclusively. The Official Liquidator without brooking any delay, shall facilitate building up of necessary correspondence/file accordingly in this regard, if request is made by the Applicant in writing.

¶39

Sd/JUDGE

¶40

Bsv

Ekanath a Irkal v. the Official Liquidator of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ekanath a Irkal v. the Official Liquidator of

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

Mrs. Elizabeth Simon George Vs the State of Karnataka

Gajanana Govinda Pai Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. B.R. Sujatha Vs Bangalore Development Authority

Mr. S. K. John Vs M/S. Mysore Tools Limited in Liquidation

A Venkatesh Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Vimala Anantharamaiah Vs the State of Karnataka