Allowed

Mallakka. S.D., v. M/S Shree Ambika Nidhi Limited

Karnataka HC21 Feb 2024CA/35/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge allowed an application to condone a 530-day delay in filing a claim before an Official Liquidator. The court accepted the applicant's explanation regarding lack of notice and directed the liquidator to consider the claim.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 530 days in filing claim statement is condoned; Official Liquidator directed to consider the claimant's claim.

Mallakka. S.D., Vs M/S Shree Ambika Nidhi Limited — Insolvency and Bankruptcy | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:7255 CA No. 35 of 2023 IN COP No.124/2004

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE COMPANY APPLICATION NO. 35 OF 2023

¶6

¶7

COMPANY PETITION NO.124 OF 2004

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MALLAKKA.S.D., W/O RUKMAYA POOJARY, AGED ABOUT 89 YEARS, R/AT SARVE DOLA HOUSE, SARVE POST AND VILLAGE, PUTTUR TALUK, D.K., 574202.

¶10

…APPLICANT

¶11

(BY SRI.KETHAN KUMAR., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by A K CHANDRIKA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

M/S SHREE AMBIKA NIDHI LIMITED IN LIQUIDATION, REPRESENTED BY OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR, NO.26-27, 12^TH FLOOR, RAHEJA TOWERS, M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE-560001.

¶15

(BY SRI.JAGADEESHGOUD PATIL., ADVOCATE)

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

THIS APPLICATION IS FILED UNDER RULE 177 OF COMPANIES (COURT) RULES, 1959 READ WITH SECTION 5 OF THE LIMITATION ACT, PRAYING TO (A) CONDONE THE DELAY OF 530 DAYS IN PREFERRING THE CLAIM PETITOIN BEFORE THE RESPONDENT OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR AND TO DIRECT THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR TO ADJUDICATE THE CLAIM MADE BY THE APPLICANT CORPORATION; (B) TO PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER/S, AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:7255 CA No. 35 of 2023 IN COP No.124/2004

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Learned counsel for the Official Liquidator submits

¶23

that he has received the copy of application for condonation of delay.

¶24

This Company Application is filed by the Investor in company liquidation. The applicant claims that she has invested certain amount in respondent–Company. The company is ordered to be wound up vide order dated 27.03.2006. Thereafter, statutory publications were made inviting claims. The present application is filed claiming recovery of the amount deposited in the respondentcompany in liquidation. As can be noticed that the claim was required to be submitted before 26.02.2021. The application is filed to condone the delay of 530 days.

¶25

The applicant submits that paper publication

¶26

was not noticed and the order relating to the winding up of the company came to the knowledge of the applicant once

¶27

¶28

NC: 2024:KHC:7255 CA No. 35 of 2023 IN COP No.124/2004

¶29

the applicant received notice dated 15.07.2022. Hence,

¶30

the application is filed to condone the delay.

¶31

The Official Liquidator has not filed any statement of objections to the said application.

¶32

This Court has considered the averments made

¶33

in the application. Along with the application, the applicant

¶34

has also produced four certificates relating to deposit

¶35

made in the company in liquidation. After going through records, this Court is of the view that ground is made out to condone the delay in filing the claim statement.

¶36

Hence, delay of 530 days in filing the application is condoned. The Official Liquidator is directed to consider the claim of the claimant.

¶37

Accordingly, C.A.No.35/2023 is allowed.

¶38

Sd/JUDGE

¶39

¶40

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8

Mallakka. S.D., v. M/S Shree Ambika Nidhi Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mallakka. S.D., v. M/S Shree Ambika Nidhi Limited

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

Ramachandra P Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri P Muniraju Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Someshwara Farmers Co-Operative Spinning Mill Ltd., Vs State of Karnataka

Reserve Bank of India Vs Kirloskar Investments and Finance Ltd.

Reserve Bank of India Vs Kirloskar Investments and Finance Ltd.

Ashakiran, Vs M/S Shree Ambika Nidhi Limited