Disposed

Sri C Ganesh Narayan v. Dr C Vinod Hayagriv

Karnataka HC28 Mar 2023WP/5326/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka disposed of a writ petition challenging an NCLT order by keeping all contentions open and directing the Tribunal to expedite pending applications.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of, keeping all contentions open. The NCLT is directed to hear and dispose of the pending case (CA No. 62/2021) and applications expeditiously.

Sri C Ganesh Narayan Vs Dr C Vinod Hayagriv — Company and Corporate | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 5326 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA WRIT PETITION NO. 5326 OF 2023 (GM-RES)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI. C. GANESH NARAYAN, S/O LATE MR. C. V. NARAYAN, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.

¶11

Digitally signed by VALLI M Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

SMT. C. VALLI NARAYAN, W/O LATE MR. C. V. NARAYAN, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS.

¶13

PETITIONER NO.1 AND 2 RESIDE AT NO.44, OSBORNE ROAD, ULSOOR, BENGALURU - 560 042.

¶14

C. GANESH NARAYAN HUF, AT NO.44, OSBORNE ROAD, ULSOOR, BENGALURU - 560 042. THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE.

¶15

DEEPALI CO. PVT. LTD. PRESENTLY, C KRISHNAIAH CHETTY AND CO PVT LTD, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT, TOUCHSTONE B BLOCK, NO.2/4,MAIN GUARD CROSS ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE. (UNDER REGISTERED COMPANIES RULES 2014)

¶16

¶17

WP No. 5326 of 2023

¶18

…PETITIONERS

¶19

(BY SRI. K. N. PRANINDRA., SR. ADVOCATE SMT. KRUTIKA RAGHAVAN., ADVOCATE)

¶20

AND:

¶21

DR. C. VINOD HAYAGRIV, S/O MR. C. V. HAYAGRIV, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS.

¶22

MR. C. V. HAYAGRIV, S/O LATE C. VENKATACHALAPATHY, CHETTY, AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS.

¶23

MRS. C. TRIVENI VINOD, W/O MR. VINOD HAYAGRIV, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS.

¶24

MRS. C. VISALA HAYAGRIV, W/O MR. C. V. HAYAGRIV, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS.

¶25

MR. CHAITANYA V. COTHA, S/O MR. VINOD HAYAGRIV, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS.

¶26

MR. SHREYAS V. COTHA, S/O MR. VINOD HAYAGRIV, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS.

¶27

RESPONDENTS NOS. 2 TO 6, REPRESENTED BY THEIR POWER OF, ATTORNEY HOLDER, DR. C. VINOD HAYAGRIV, SON OF MR. C. V. HAYAGRIV, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS.

¶28

RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 6 ALL RESIDING AT, "KRISHNA PRASAD" 1/34, ULSOOR ROAD, HANUMANTHAPPA LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 042.

¶29

¶30

WP No. 5326 of 2023

¶31

C. KRISHNAIAH CHETTY AND SONS PVT. LTD. HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.35, COMMERCIAL STREET,

¶32

BANGALORE - 560 001, KARNATAKA.

¶33

KRISHNAIAH CHETTY AND SONS MANUFACTURERS PVT. LTD. HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT THE TOUCHSTONE, 3RD FLOOR, NO.2, AND 2/1 MAIN GUARD CROSS ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶34

THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE.

¶35

C. KRISHNAIAH CHETTY AND SONS FIRM, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.36, COMMERCIAL STREET, BENGALURU - 560 001,

¶36

THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE.

¶37

C. KRISHNAIAH CHETTY AND SONS CHARITABLE TRUST, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.35, COMMERCIAL STREET, BENGALURU - 560 001,

¶38

THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE.

¶39

C. KRISHNAIAH CHETTY FOUNDATION, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT THE TOUCHSTONE, 4TH FLOOR, NO.2 AND 2/1, MAIN GUARD CROSS ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001, THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE.

¶40

C. KRISHNAIAH CHETTY JEWELLERS PVT. LTD. HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.36, COMMERCIAL STREET, BENGALURU - 560 001, THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE.

¶41

MR. SHYAM RAMADHYANI, S/O LATE MR. B. K. RAMADHYANI, AGED ABOU5 63 YEARS, PARTNER, B. K. RAMADHYANI AND CO. LLP, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, HAVING HIS OFFICE AT NO.4B, CHITRAPUR BHAVAN, NO.68

¶42

¶43

WP No. 5326 of 2023

¶44

8TH MAIN, 15TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU - 560 055.

¶45

…RESPONDENTS

¶46

(BY SRI. MANDEEP KALRA., ADVOCATE FOR R1, R7 TO R12; SRI. HITESH GOWDA B J., ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R6 V/ORDER DATED 23.03.2023 IS NOTICE TO R13

¶47

DISPENSED WITH)

¶48

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 08.02.2023 PASSED BY THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE (NCLT) IN COMPANY PETITION NO.4 /(BB)/2020 (ANNEXURE-A1) AND SET ASIDE ALL ACTIONS TAKEN PURSUANT TO THE SAME AND ETC.,

¶49

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, K.SOMASHEKAR J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶50

ORDER

¶51

Heard Sri K N Phanindra, learned Senior counsel representing Smt. Krutika Raghavan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Sri Mandeep Kalra, learned counsel representing respondent Nos.1, 7 to 12, who is present before the Court physically; and Sri Hitesh Gowda B J, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 6, who is also present before the Court physically.

¶52

In this writ petition, the petitioners have sought for quashing of the order dated 08.02.2023 passed by the National

¶53

¶54

WP No. 5326 of 2023

¶55

Company Law Tribunal, Bangalore ('NCLT') in Company Petition No.4(BB)/2020 vide Annexure-A1 to the petition.

¶56

Similar submissions and contentions were made by learned Senior counsel in respect of main prayer as well as interim prayer with regard to impugned order at Annexure-A1 in Company Petition No.4/(BB)/2020.

¶57

Learned Senior counsel has taken us through the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in WP No.19265/2021 dated 24.11.2021 vide Annexure-A7 to the writ petition, wherein the learned Single Judge, keeping in view the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, has observed that, the parties are in gracious agreement with the suggestion of this Court that the petitioner's application in CA No.62/2021 be heard along with I.A.Nos.5, 6 and 7 in CP No.4(BB)/2020 within a period of two weeks and whatever the contentions that are taken by the petitioners and also the parties on the other side were kept open except the one as to power of the Tribunal to recall the impugned order. Even the specific contention as to lack of jurisdiction to recall or review

¶58

¶59

WP No. 5326 of 2023

¶60

the order in question taken up by the contesting respondents, have been given up consciously.

¶61

It is contended by Sri Mandeep Kalra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1, R.7 to R.12 that despite pendency of the aforesaid application in CA No.62/2021, there was an order passed relating to status quo, which is in force . Whereas, learned Senior counsel has also taken us through the Contempt Petition No.1/2022, which is pending before the aforesaid NCLT. In that contempt proceeding, notice was issued to the contemnors and Registry was directed to prepare notice and counsel for the petitioner was permitted to collect the notice from the Registry and serve it personally on the contemnors.

¶62

Based on the submissions made by learned Senior counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for respondent Nos.1, 7 to 12 including learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 6, though the case in CA No.62/2021 is pending before the NCLT wherein IAs are also pending consideration, learned counsel for the respondents pray that a direction be issued to expedite the said matter. Accordingly, the counsel is permitted to file a memo to that effect.

¶63

¶64

WP No. 5326 of 2023

¶65

Therefore, keeping in view the submissions made by learned counsel for respondent Nos.1, 7 to 12 including learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 6 and also having regard to the memo in writing which is filed by learned counsel for respondent Nos.1, 7 to 12, it is deemed appropriate to dispose of this writ petition keeping open all the contentions urged by the parties.

¶66

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶67

However, the NCLT is directed to hear the aforesaid case in CA No.62/2021 including I.A.Nos.5, 6 and 7, which are pending consideration and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law.

¶68

Sd/JUDGE

¶69

Sd/JUDGE

¶70

MV List No.:1 Sl No.: 18 CT:STK

Sri C Ganesh Narayan v. Dr C Vinod Hayagriv

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri C Ganesh Narayan v. Dr C Vinod Hayagriv

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Girish Puravankara Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Nanjunda Swamy Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri M Krishnamurthy Vs the Tahsildar

M/S S v S Consultants Vs Indian Overseas Bank

Karnataka Rajya Amateur Vs the Union of India

The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Vs M/S Mani Enterprises