Allowed

Sri. Ashok Kumar Chatarmalji Jain v. Official Liquidator of

Karnataka HC7 Mar 2024CA/101/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicants sought condonation of delay in compliance with Section 468 of the Companies Act after surrendering all original documents, vehicles and properties of the company in liquidation to the official liquidator. The official liquidator confirmed receipt; the court condoned the delay, took the compliance on record and allowed the application.

What did the court decide?

Delay condoned, compliance taken on record; liberty to official liquidator to file fresh proceedings for any other identified property.

Sri. Ashok Kumar Chatarmalji Jain Vs Official… — Company and Corporate | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:17509 CA No. 101 of 2015

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶7

COMPANY APPLICATION NO. 101 OF 2015 IN COMPANY APPLICATION NO.2402 OF 2013 IN COMPANY PETITION NO. 157 OF 2011

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI.ASHOK KUMAR CHATARMALJI JAIN NO.4/6, 5^TH MAIN ROAD APARTMENT-3, 4^TH BLOCK JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-11

¶10

SRI. JEETMAL JAIN NO.264, 5^TH MAIN 4^TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BANGALORE-11

¶11

…APPLICANTS (BY SRI. S GANESH SHENOY., ADVOCATE) AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR OF M/S INDUS WESTSIDE HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD.(IN LIQN) ATTACHED TO HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CORPORATE BHAVAN, NO.26-27 12^TH FLOOR, RAHEJA TOWERS, M.G. ROAD BANGALORE-01

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI.SHRISHAIL NAVALGUND, ADVOCATE)

¶16

THIS APPLICATION IS FILED UNDER RULE 6 & 9 OF THE COMPANIES COURT RULES, 1959 READ WITH SECTION 5 OF THE LIMITATION ACT, PRAYING TO INDULGENCE MAY BE SHOWN BY CONDONING THE DELAY IF ANY, IN THE MATTER OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SECTION 468 OF COMPANIES ACT, 1956.

¶17

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

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:17509 CA No. 101 of 2015

¶20

ORDER

¶21

CA No.2402/2013 had been filed seeking for the

¶22

following reliefs.

¶23

Therefore, these respondents humbly prays that kind indulgence may be shown by condoning the delay if any, in the matter of compliance with the requirements of the provisions contained in Section 468 of Companies Act, 1956 and grant such other further reliefs as may be deemed appropriate, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶24

Respondents No.1 and 2 representing the company have filed CA No.101/2015 seeking for condonation of delay, wherein it is stated that respondents No.1 and 2 have handed over all the original documents as also the vehicles and properties belonging to the company in liquidation to the official liquidator.

¶25

The official liquidator confirms the receipt of the items mentioned in the said application in CA No.10/2015. 4. In that view of the matter, accepting the reason stated for the delay in compliance, the delay is condoned, compliance is taken on record.

¶26

¶27

NC: 2024:KHC:17509 CA No. 101 of 2015

¶28

Reserving liberty to the official liquidator to file fresh proceedings, if any other property of the company in liquidation is identified, CA No.101/2015 is allowed.

¶29

Sd/JUDGE

¶30

Sri. Ashok Kumar Chatarmalji Jain v. Official Liquidator of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Ashok Kumar Chatarmalji Jain v. 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

Mr Mansoor Naghnoor Vs M/S Imperium Constructions Pvt. Ltd.

G. Ramesh Vs State of Karnataka

Ajaruddin Vs Dinesha

The Official Liquidator of M/S.India Holiday Pvt. Vs Sri Raju N G N

Shre Ram Steel and Rolling Industries (UNIT-2) Vs Lander Resorts India Pvt. Ltd.

P Manikantan Vs M/S Vaigai Thread Processors Pvt. Ltd.