Smt. Padma Vs the Mandya National Paper Mills Ltd., (in Liqdn)

SMT. PADMA D/O. LATE MARIYAPPA W/O. LATE RANGASWAMY AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT NO.128/A, M.N.P.M. HOUSING COLONY BELAGULA 571 606 SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT

¶13

Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

SMT. LAKSHMI D/O. LATE MARIYAPPA W/O. MR. MAHESH. N. AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT NO.547 DIWANS ROAD CHAMARAJA MOHALLA LAKSHMIPURAM MYSURU 570 004

¶15

SMT. MANJULA D/O. LATE MARIYAPPA W/O. LATE YOGANARASIMHA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT NO.128/A M.N.P.M. HOUSING COLONY BELAGULA - 571 606

¶16

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:22599 CA No. 436 of 2024

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT

¶19

…APPLICANTS

¶20

(BY SRI. PRAKASH K A., ADVOCATE)

¶21

AND:

¶22

THE MANDYA NATIONAL PAPER MILLS LTD., (IN LIQDN) REP. BY ITS OFFICIAL LIQUIDARTOR ATTACHED TO HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA 12 FLOOR, RAHEJA TOWERS M G ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001

¶23

…RESPONDENT

¶24

(BY SRI. K.S. MAHADEVAN, ADVOCATE FOR O.L.)

¶25

THIS COMPANY APPLICATION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 446(2) OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 R/W RULES 6 AND 9 OF THE COMPANIES (Court) RULES, 1959 FURTHER R/W SEC. 151 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 , PRAYING FOR A DIRECTION TO THE “OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR”, TO EXECUTE THE SALE DEED IN FAVOUR OF APPLICANT No.1 HEREIN IN RESPECT OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY IN LINE WITH THE ORDER DATED 16^TH JULY 2004 PASSED BY THIS HON’BLE Court IN COMPANY APPLICATION Nos.12/02, 967/02, 511/01, TO 514/01, ETC. AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT.

¶26

THIS APPLICATION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

This company application is filed by the applicants under Section 446(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 read

¶30

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:22599 CA No. 436 of 2024

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

with Rules 6 and 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, to direct the respondent - official liquidator to execute the sale deed in favour of appellant No.1 herein in line in accordance with the order dated 16.07.2004 passed by this Court in company application Nos.12/02, 967/02, 511/01 to 514/01 etc., in COP No.112/94.

¶33

Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this application are as follows:

¶34

Applicants are in occupation of the quarters bearing No.128/A, situated in M.N.P.M Housing Colony, Belagula, which was constructed under the subsidised Industrial Scheme of the Government and allotted to the father of the applicants by the Company (in liquidation). The father of the applicants was working in the company (in liquidation) and had been residing in the quarters in question since the date of his employment. Some of the occupants of the quarters approached this Court in C.A.Nos.12/2002, 967/02, and other connected matters in COP.No.112/1994, and this Court has passed a common

¶35

4 -

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:22599 CA No. 436 of 2024

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

order dated 16.07.2004 directing the respondent - Official Liquidator to execute the necessary sale deeds in favour of all the 300 occupants of the quarters at M.N.P.M. colony, Belagula, including the applicants, after receiving a total sale consideration of Rs.12,500/- per quarters from each

¶39

of the occupants of the quarters, within three months.

¶40

The father of the applicants, passed away on 08.12.2014, the mother of the applicants also expired and the husbands of applicant Nos.1 and 3 herein also expired and they are no more. It is submitted that pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 16.07.2004, the applicants father has paid Rs.12,500/- to the respondent - official Liquidator vide DD No.326295 dated 17.11.2004 drawn on M/s State Bank of Mysore, Hongahally Branch and prays to allow the application and direct the respondent - Official Liquidator to execute the registered sale deed in favour of applicant No.1 and applicants No.2 and 3 have no objection to execute the registered sale deed in favour of applicant

¶41

No.1.

¶42

5 -

¶43

NC: 2025:KHC:22599 CA No. 436 of 2024

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel Sri.

¶46

Prakash K.A., for the applicants and learned counsel Sri. Jagdish Gowda Patil for the official liquidator.

¶47

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that in a similar set of facts, this Court has already allowed the applications, and directed the official liquidator to execute the registered sale deeds in respect of quarters situated at M.N.P.M. colony, Belagula. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the application.

¶48

Per contra , learned counsel for the official liquidator submits that the applicants have not paid the consideration amount. If the applicants fulfill the conditions and pay the consideration amount, the official liquidator is ready to execute the registered sale deed. Hence, prays to dispose of the petition.

¶49

Admittedly, there is no dispute regarding the passing of the orders in C.A.No.346/2023 and C.A.No.210/2024 in COP No.112/1994 vide order dated

¶50

6 -

¶51

NC: 2025:KHC:22599 CA No. 436 of 2024

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

19.12.2024, wherein similarly placed applicants were there

¶54

in a similar circumstances, and the official liquidator was directed to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the applicants therein. The applicants stand on the same footing and they are entitled to the benefit of the said order.

¶55

In view of the above discussion, I proceed to

¶56

pass the following order:

¶57

ORDER

¶58

i. The Company application is allowed.

¶59

ii. The official liquidator is directed to execute a registered sale deed in favour of applicant No.1, after receiving the entire consideration amount, if any, subject to the applicants fulfilling the conditions and furnishing the documents, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶60

Sd/(ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE

¶61

SKS

Smt. Padma v. the Mandya National Paper Mills Ltd., (in Liqdn)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Padma v. the Mandya National Paper Mills Ltd., (in Liqdn)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt S L Shamala Vs Sri S L Shridhara Murthy

Sri. Chikkamuniswamappa Vs Sri. C. Manjunatha

M/S. Sportz Village Foundation Vs Pearls Academy

M/S Bearys Properties and Developments Private Limited Vs Mr Shamsuddin Zia Jukaku

Dr Suresh @ Suryakant R Duggani Vs M/S Carl Zeiss India Bengaluru Pvt. Ltd.

Sri K Devananda Vs the Mandya National Paper Mills Ltd., (in Liqdn)