Disposed

Official Liquidator of v. Indian Terrain Fashions Limited

Karnataka HC12 Jun 2024CA/316/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Official Liquidator of United Breweries (Holdings) Ltd sought interest on a debt from respondent company under Section 446(2)(b). The Court held the claim was not barred by limitation and could not be rejected absent particulars at this stage, directing recording of evidence and trial. Claims against individual directors were dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Claim held within time; evidence and trial directed; claim against respondents No.2 to 6 dismissed.

Official Liquidator of Vs Indian Terrain… — Insolvency and Bankruptcy | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:20998 CA No. 316 of 2023 In COP No.57 of 2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶7

COMPANY APPLICATION NO. 316 OF 2023

¶8

¶9

COMPANY PETITION NO.57 OF 2012

¶10

BETWEEN

¶11

OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR OF M/S UNITED BREWERIES (HOLDINGS) LTD (IN LIQN) ATTACHED TO HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CORPORATE BHAVAN, NO.26-27, 12^TH FLOOR, RAHEJA TOWERS, M G ROAD BENGALURU-560001

¶12

...APPLICANT

¶13

(BY SMT. KRUTIKA RAGHAVAN., ADVOCATE FOR O.L.)

¶14

AND

¶15

Digitally signed by NARAYANAPPA LAKSHMAMMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

INDIAN TERRAIN FASHIONS LIMITED NO.208, VELACHERY TAMBARAM ROAD NARAYANAPURAM, PALLIKARANAI, CHENNAI-600045, TAMIL NADU, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI VENKATESH RAJAGOPAL

¶17

SRI RAMA RAJAGOPAL WHOLE TIME DIRECTOR 10, RAJAGOPALN STREET, VALMIKI NAGAR, THIRUVANMIYUR CHENNAI-600041 TAMIL NADU

¶18

SRI VENKATESH RAJAGOAPL WHOLE TIME DIRECTOR AND MANAGING

¶19

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:20998 CA No. 316 of 2023 In COP No.57 of 2012

¶20

DIRECTOR 10 RAJAGOPALN II STREET, VALMIKI NAGAR, THIRUVANMIYUR CHENNAI-600041 TAMIL NADU

¶21

SRI CHARATH RAM NARSIMHAN MANAGING DIRECTOR F-201, THE ATRIUM 22/49 KALAKSHETRA ROAD, THIRUVANMIYUR CHENNAI-600041 TAMIL NADU

¶22

SRI VIDYUTH VENKATESH RAJAGOPAL MANAGING DIRECTOR 10 RAJAGOPALN II STREET, VALMIKI NAGAR THIRUVANMIYUR CHENNAI-600041 TAMIL NADU

¶23

SRI MUTHUKRISHNAN THIYAGARAJAN, CFO BLOCK A, SECOND FLOOR, 27 KG EYE S ASHTORIA RADHA NAGAR NO.16, RAILWAY BORDER ROAD CHROMPET, KANCHEEPURAM CHENNAI-600044, TAMIL NADU

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. TEJAS S.R., ADVOCATE)

¶26

THIS COMPANY APPLICATION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 446(2)(b) OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 READ WITH RULE 9 OF THE COMPANIES (COURT) RULES, 1959 PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT COMPANY TO PAY A SUM OF RS. 8,72,174/- AND RS. 10,43,455/- AS INTEREST @ 18% FROM 07.02.2017 TO 30.09.2023, TOTAL AMOUNTING TO RS. 19, 15,629/- AND FUTURE INTEREST FROM 01.10.2023 TILL THE DATE OF PAYMENT AND ETC.

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:20998 CA No. 316 of 2023 In COP No.57 of 2012

¶28

THIS COMPANY APPLICATION COMING ON FOR ORDERS AND HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 25.04.2024, THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

¶29

ORDER

¶30

CA No.316/2023 has been filed seeking for the following reliefs;,

¶31

a) To direct the respondent company to pay a sum of Rs. 8,72,174/- and Rs.10,43,455/- as interest @ 18% from 07.02.2017 to 30.09.2023, total amounting to Rs.19,15,629/- and future interest from 01.10.2023 till the date of payment.

¶32

b) To pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶33

The company in liquidation in the present matter is M/s United Breweries (Holdings) Ltd., who is the applicant in C.A. No.280/2023, having been wound up by an order dated 7.02.2017 in Company Petition No.57/2012, the Official Liquidator attached to this Court has been appointed as a liquidator of the company in terms of Section 449 of the Companies Act, 1956 [‘Act’ for short]. The Official Liquidator has

¶34

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:20998 CA No. 316 of 2023 In COP No.57 of 2012

¶35

filed the above application under Section 446(2)(b)

¶36

seeking for the above reliefs.

¶37

In the present matter the Official Liquidator has made a claim that respondent No.1 is due to the company in liquidation a sum of Rs.19,15,629/-.

¶38

The arguments advanced by Ms.Kruthika Raghavan and Sri.Tejas.S.R, learned counsel for the respondents is the same as that addressed by the counsel in C.A. No.280/2023. As such, I am of the considered opinion that the finding on law as rendered by me in C.A. No.280/2023 is equally applicable to the present matter.

¶39

Insofar as the facts are concerned to ascertain if the claim made by Official Liquidator is within the period of limitation or not, it is seen that respondent No.1 is stated to be indebted to the company in liquidation the principal sum of Rs.8,72,174/- as on 7.02.2017 i.e. the date of winding up which is denied by the respondents wholly on the ground that there are no

¶40

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:20998 CA No. 316 of 2023 In COP No.57 of 2012

¶41

particulars indicating the nature of the transaction

¶42

and that the claim is barred by limitation.

¶43

Insofar as limitation is concerned, that aspect having been dealt in C.A. No.280/2023, I am of the considered opinion that the claim of the Official Liquidator cannot be exfacie said to be barred by limitation.

¶44

Insofar as no particulars having been produced by the Official Liquidator in the claim petition under Section 446(2)(b), the petition having been filed, it is for the Official Liquidator to establish the same during the course of evidence/trial as held by me in C.A. No.280/2023. The Official Liquidator would have to prove the nature of transaction, money value of the transaction, payments made or not made including any part payment made as regards the said transaction. This would have to be established by the Official Liquidator by leading cogent evidence,

¶45

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:20998 CA No. 316 of 2023 In COP No.57 of 2012

¶46

producing verifiable documents, and further being subjected to cross-examination.

¶47

That stage not having arisen as yet, at this stage, I am of the considered opinion that the claim cannot be denied or rejected on the basis of no documents having been produced by the Official Liquidator. Hence, I pass the following:

¶48

ORDER

¶49

i. The claim of the Official Liquidator is held to be within time and it is not barred by limitation.

¶50

ii. Registry is directed to place the above matter before the Central Process Coordinator for recordal of evidence.

¶51

iii. The Official Liquidator is directed to file his affidavit in lieu of evidence and documents on or before 04.07.2024.

¶52

iv. The Central Process Coordinator is directed to record the evidence in chief and mark the

¶53

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:20998 CA No. 316 of 2023 In COP No.57 of 2012

¶54

documents on 11.07.2024 commencing from 3 p.m., thereafter conduct trial in the matter and place the same before this court.

¶55

In view of the submission made by Ms.Kruthika Raghavan, learned counsel on instructions of Official Liquidator, the claim petition against respondents No.2 to 6 stands dismissed.

¶56

Sd/JUDGE

¶57

¶58

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 3

Official Liquidator of v. Indian Terrain Fashions Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Official Liquidator of v. Indian Terrain Fashions Limited

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

Chikkannaiah Vs Muddanaika

Sri K Y Shanthi Swaroop Vs Sri C L Jayakumar

Sri Karibasanna Vs Sri Vasantha

Smt H N Radha Vs Sri Narasimhegowda

Official Liquidator of M/S United Breweries (Holding) Ltd. (in Liqn) Vs M/S Mysore Fruit Products Pvt. Ltd.

Basavarajappa Vs Navilappa