Partly allowed

Mangal D Karnad v. Negf Ltd.

Karnataka HC15 Feb 2023CA/413/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this service matter, the High Court dismissed the applicant's petition for implementation of a pension/settlement order as not maintainable due to a prior adjudication, reserved liberty for appeal, and directed the respondent to pay the adjudicated sum upon furnishing indemnity. (Mono court, composite order)

What did the court decide?

Application disposed of; liberty to appeal given; respondent directed to pay adjudicated sum within four weeks upon receipt of indemnity.

Mangal D Karnad Vs Negf Ltd. — Company and Corporate | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - CA No. 413/2022 IN COP NO.154/2002

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶6

CA NO. 413/2022 IN COP NO.154/2002

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MANGAL D KARNAD, W/O UDAY SHANKAR BHAT .P, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/A NO.2, ESHANYA PRATHAMA, 3^RD CROSS, B.C. GUNDAPPA LAYOUT, BYRASANDRA, C.V RAMAN NAGAR, BENGALURU 560 093.

¶9

…APPLICANT

¶10

(BY SRI. B RAMESH.,ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by CHETAN B C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

NEGF LTD., KSSIDC, KANAJI BHAVAN, 2^ND FLOOR, BENGALURU 560 001. REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI.SAJI P JOHN.,ADVOCATE)

¶16

THIS APPLICATION IS FILED UNDER RULE 6 AND 9 OF THE COMPANIES COURT RULES 1959, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITY TO IMPLEMENT THE ORDER DATED 27.07.2018 PASSED IN CA NO.103/2018 PASSED PURSUANT TO THE MEMO FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS THEMSELVES BY RELEASING ALL THE TERMINAL BENEFITS TO THE PETITIONER IN TERMS OF THE FINAL SETTLEMENT SCHEME 2016 INCLUDING BACK WAGES AND OTHER CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS ALONG WITH INTEREST FROM

¶17

¶18

CA No. 413/2022 IN COP NO.154/2002

¶19

21.09.2000 AS EXTENDED TO OTHER 120 EMPLOYEES AS PER THE ORDER PASSED IN CA NO.278/2016 DATED 15.07.2016 AND ETC.,

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The Application in CA No.423/2022 has become infructuous since already there is adjudication in terms of which a sum of Rs.22,04,534 is payable to the Applicant herein. Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that the amount due being much more, his client is not happy with this adjudication order dated 07.03.2019. He further submits that this amount be directed to be handed to the Applicant. Counsel for the company agrees to the same subject to furnishing the Indemnity and bank account details.

¶23

In view of the above, the Application is disposed off as being not maintainable reserving liberty to the Applicant to put the adjudication order in Appeal in accordance with law. In that connection, all contentions are kept open.

¶24

CA No. 413/2022 IN COP NO.154/2002

¶25

¶26

Learned counsel for the company undertakes to

¶27

make payment of the said amount within four weeks once

¶28

the Bank Account details Indemnity are furnished.

¶29

Sd/JUDGE

¶30

Bsv

Mangal D Karnad v. Negf Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mangal D Karnad v. Negf Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M Katappa Vs the State of Karnataka

C Krishnappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt B Uma Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Zuari Infraworld India Limited Vs M/S Mandya National Paper Mills

M/S Zuari Infraworld India Limited Vs M/S Mandya National Paper Mills

Sri Somashekar N Vs the State of Karnataka