Dismissed¶40

Mr Santosh Umakant Jawadar v. Official Liquidator of Broadcast Infratel India Private Limited

Karnataka HC5 Aug 2025OSA/3/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

OSA No.3 of 2025, High Court of Karnataka, decided 05-08-2025; maintainability of original side appeal against Single Judge's order; Section 483 Companies Act 1956; Section 4 Karnataka High Court Act 1961; Section 434 Companies Act 2013 transfer of winding-up petition (Company Petition No.236 of 2010) to NCLT Bengaluru; Official Liquidator of Broadcast Infratel India Private Limited; order dated 03.07.2025 recording undertaking to furnish documents; winding-up order; irreversible steps; locus of applicant; appeal dismissed with liberty to prosecute pending Company Application No.39 of 2025 before learned Single Judge.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the appellant to prosecute the pending application before the learned Single Judge. ¶40

Mr Santosh Umakant Jawadar Vs Official Liquidator of… — Company and Corporate | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty to the appellant to prosecute the pending application before the learned Single Judge.

¶40

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant has the locus to file an application for transferring the Company Petition to the National Company Law Tribunal at this stage. +2 more

¶39

Ratio / Principle

The appeal is not maintainable against the order impugned because Company Application No.39 of 2025 in Company Petition No.236 of 2010 is still pending on the file of the learned Single Judge.

¶40

Key takeaways

The appeal is dismissed with liberty to the appellant to prosecute the pending application before the learned Single Judge.ratio¶40

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka (judgment per D K Singh J.; bench including Venkatesh Naik T J.) dismissed Original Side Appeal No.3 of 2025, filed under Section 483 of the Companies Act, 1956 read with Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 by Mr. Santosh Umakant Jawadar against the order dated 03.07.2025 of the learned Single Judge in Company Application No.944 of 2012 connected with Company Application No.945 of 2012 and Company Petition No.236 of 2010 (a petition in which a winding-up order had been passed and in which the Official Liquidator of Broadcast Infratel India Private Limited is the respondent). The appellant sought transfer of the Company Petition to the National Company Law Tribunal, Bengaluru under Section 434 of the Companies Act, 2013, contending that no irreversible steps had been taken after the winding-up order. Holding that Company Application No.39 of 2025 in Company Petition No.236 of 2010 was still pending before the learned Single Judge, the Bench found the appeal not maintainable against the impugned order and dismissed it with liberty to the appellant to prosecute that application before the learned Single Judge. The impugned order itself had merely recorded an undertaking by the respondents to furnish documents sought by the Official Liquidator.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:30229-DB OSA No. 3 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T ORIGINAL SIDE APPEAL NO.3 OF 2025 IN COMPANY PETITION NO.236 OF 2010

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

MR. SANTOSH UMAKANT JAWADAR AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS S/O. MR. UMAKANT GANPATRAO JAWADWAR RESIDING AT NO.C-2/7, HIMALAYA PRIDE TECH ZONE IV, GREATER NOIDA GAUTAM BUDDHA NAGAR UTTAR PRADESH-201 308.

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI ANIRUDH SURESH, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by MOUNESHWARAPPA NAGARATHNA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR OF BROADCAST INFRATEL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ATTACHED TO HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CORPORATE BHAVAN NO.26-27 12TH FLOOR, RAHEJA TOWERS M.G. ROAD BENGALURU-560 001.

…RESPONDENT

NC: 2025:KHC:30229-DB OSA No. 3 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

THIS ORIGINAL SIDE APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 483 OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, READ WITH SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 3-7-2025 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA IN COMPANY APPLICATION NO.39 OF 2025 FILED UNDER SECTION 434 OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013, IN COMPANY PETITION NO.236 OF 2010 AND BE PLEASED TO TRANSFER THE COMPANY PETITION NO.236 OF 2010 PENDING ON THE FILE OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA TO THE HON'BLE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU, AS PER SECTION 434 OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶22

THIS ORIGINAL SIDE APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

¶24

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶25

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

¶26

The present original appeal has been filed impugning the order dated 03.07.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in Company Application No.944 of 2012 connected with Company Application No.945 of 2012 and Company Petition No.236 of 2010.

¶27

The order impugned reads as under:

¶28

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:30229-DB OSA No. 3 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

"Learned counsel for the official liquidator submits that the respondents have not furnished the documents as sought by the official liquidator.

¶32

Learned counsel for the respondents undertakes to furnish the documents as sought by the learned counsel for the official liquidator.

¶33

Undertaking is taken on record."

¶34

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Company Petition even at this stage after winding up can be transferred to the National Company Law Tribunal, if no irreversible steps have been taken in respect of the Company after winding up of the order has been passed. He further submits that no irreversible steps have been taken in respect of the Company by the Official Liquidator, after the order of winding up had been passed by the learned Single Judge and therefore, he has filed an application for transferring the Company Petition to the National Company Law Tribunal, Bengaluru.

¶35

The said application is still pending before the learned Single Judge for consideration.

¶36

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:30229-DB OSA No. 3 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

Number of issues would arise in the said application inter alia the locus of the appellant to file an application for transferring the Company Petition before the National Company Law Tribunal, at this stage, and secondly, whether any irreversible steps have been taken by the Official Liquidator or not.

¶40

Company Application No.39 of 2025 in Company Petition No.236 of 2010 is still pending on the file of the learned Single Judge and therefore, we do not find that this appeal is maintainable against the order impugned herein. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal with liberty to the appellant to prosecute the application before the learned Single Judge.

¶41

Sd/(D K SINGH) JUDGE

¶42

Sd/(VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE

¶43

KVK

¶44

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12

Mr Santosh Umakant Jawadar v. Official Liquidator of Broadcast Infratel India Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Santosh Umakant Jawadar v. Official Liquidator of Broadcast Infratel India Private Limited

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

Mrs. K. Nirmala Rani Vs M/S. Attur Steels Pvt. Ltd.

M/S Future General India Insurance Vs Sri J G Sheshasaayee

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sri Mahadevappa

Smt Nandakumari M Vs Smt Shilpa v R

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

Cosmopolitan Club Vs the Karnataka Lokayukta