Dismissed¶50

M/S Artek Enterprises Private Limited v. Official Liquidator of M/S Ordyn Technologies Private Limited

Karnataka HC13 Nov 2025CA/254/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Artek Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v. Official Liquidator, Ordyn Technologies Pvt. Ltd.; Karnataka HC (Jyoti M, J., 13.11.2025); condonation of delay refused; recall of order dated 26.07.2022 in C.A.No.32/2021 (COP No.132/2011) refused; cross-examination of PW1 closed as Nil after adjournment prayer rejected; ill-health/Covid-19 ground not proved; change of counsel not a ground; S.151 CPC; Rules 6 & 9 Company (Court) Rules 1959; company applications rejected.

What did the court decide?

The reasons accorded for condonation of delay cannot be accepted: there is nothing on record to show that the applicant was suffering from ill-health, and changing of counsel is not a ground to condone the delay or to recall the order. ¶47

M/S Artek Enterprises Private Limited Vs Official Liquidator of M/S Ordyn Technologies Private Limited — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:46288 CA No. 254 of 2025 AND CA No. 255 of 2025 IN CA No. 32 of 2021 HC-KAR IN COP No. 132 of 2011

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M

¶7

COMPANY APPLICATION NO.254 OF 2025

¶8

AND

¶9

COMPANY APPLICATION NO.255 OF 2025

¶10

¶11

COMPANY APPLICATION NO.32 OF 2021

¶12

¶13

COMPANY PETITION NO.132 OF 2011

¶14

IN CA NO.254 OF 2025

¶15

BETWEEN:

¶16

M/S. ARTEK ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, 505, MADHUBAN BUILDING, 55, NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI - 110 019.

¶17

Digitally signed ALATERNATIVE ADDRESS by THEJAS M/S. ARTEK ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, KUMAR N 603, MANJUSHA, 57 NEHRU PLACE, Location: HIGH NEW DELHI - 110 019. COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶18

…APPLICANT

¶19

(BY SRI. BHARATH K., ADVOCATE)

¶20

AND:

¶21

OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR OF M/S. ORDYN TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED, ATTACHED TO THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, CORPORATE BHAVAN, NO.26-27,

¶22

¶23

NC: 2025:KHC:46288 CA No. 254 of 2025 AND CA No. 255 of 2025 IN CA No. 32 of 2021 HC-KAR IN COP No. 132 of 2011

¶24

12^TH FLOOR, RAHEJA TOWERS, M.G.ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶25

…RESPONDENT

¶26

(BY SRI.SHRISHAIL NAVALGUND, ADVOCATE FOR OL)

¶27

THIS COMPANY APPLICATION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 R/W RULES 6 AND 9 OF COMPANY (COURT) RULES, 1959.

¶28

IN CA NO.255 OF 2025

¶29

BETWEEN:

¶30

M/S. ARTEK ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, 505, MADHUBAN BUILDING, 55, NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI - 110 019.

¶31

ALATERNATIVE ADDRESS M/S. ARTEK ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, 603, MANJUSHA, 57 NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI - 110 019.

¶32

…APPLICANT

¶33

(BY SRI. BHARATH K.,ADVOCATE)

¶34

AND:

¶35

OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR OF M/S. ORDYN TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED, ATTACHED TO THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, CORPORATE BHAVAN, NO.26-27, 12^TH FLOOR, RAHEJA TOWERS, M.G.ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶36

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI.SHRISHAIL NAVALGUND., ADVOCATE FOR OL)

¶37

THIS COMPANY APPLICATION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 R/W RULES 6 AND 9 OF COMPANY (COURT) RULES, 1959.

¶38

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:46288 CA No. 254 of 2025 AND CA No. 255 of 2025 IN CA No. 32 of 2021 HC-KAR IN COP No. 132 of 2011

¶39

THESE COMPANY APPLICATOINS ARE LISTED FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:

¶40

ORAL ORDER

¶41

Sri.Bharath.K., counsel for the applicant and Sri.Shrishail Navalgund., counsel for the Official Liquidator have appeared in person.

¶42

Counsel Sri.Bharath.K., submits that applications are filed in C.A.No.255/2025 and C.A.No.254/2025 to condone the delay in filing the application and to recall the order dated 26.07.2022. Counsel further submits that the delay is neither wanton nor with any malafide intention. No prejudice will be caused to the other side if the delay is condoned. Counsel, therefore, submits that the delay in filing the application may be condoned and the order dated 26.07.2022 may be recalled.

¶43

Urging several contentions, counsel for the Official Liquidator submits that the Company Applications may be dismissed.

¶44

Heard the arguments and perused the application papers with utmost care.

¶45

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:46288 CA No. 254 of 2025 AND CA No. 255 of 2025 IN CA No. 32 of 2021 HC-KAR IN COP No. 132 of 2011

¶46

Suffice it to note that the matter i.e., Company

¶47

Application No.32/2021 was listed on 26.07.2022 for evidence, on that day, the advocate for respondent prayed time to crossexamine PW1. As there was no proper reasons assigned, the prayer for adjournment was rejected and cross examination of PW1 was taken as Nil. It is noted that the captioned applications are filed to condone the delay in filing the applications and to recall the order dated 26.07.2022. In the application, it has been stated that the applicant was in extreme bad health conditions and had symptoms of Covid-19 and could not instruct the counsel for conducting cross of the Official Liquidator of the Company (in Liquidation). It is also stated that the applicant changed the advocate on record and engaged a new counsel and upon perusal of the papers, the applicant was advised to file necessary application to recall the order dated 26.07.2022. The reasons accorded in the application to condone the delay cannot be accepted. There is nothing on record to show that the applicant was suffering from ill-health. Moreover, changing of counsel is not a ground to condone the delay and to recall the order. The applications are liable to be rejected.

¶48

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:46288 CA No. 254 of 2025 AND CA No. 255 of 2025 IN CA No. 32 of 2021 HC-KAR IN COP No. 132 of 2011

¶49

Resultantly, C.A.No.254/2025 and C.A.No.255/2025

¶50

are rejected .

¶51

Sd/(JYOTI M) JUDGE

¶52

TKN List No.:1 Sl No.:9

M/S Artek Enterprises Private Limited v. Official Liquidator of M/S Ordyn Technologies Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Artek Enterprises Private Limited v. Official Liquidator of M/S Ordyn Technologies Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri K B Gadigeppa Vs the Chief Traffic Manager

Sri B Shivanna Since Dead by His Lrs Smt Mangala Vs the Senior Divisional Controller

B Venkatesh Vs the Chief Accounts Officer

Vinpla Plating Private Limited Vs Rapsri Engineering Products Company Limited

M/S Menzies Aviation Bobba Bengaluru Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Official Liquidator

Smt Jayamma Vs Dr B Nataraju