Smt Rathnamma Vs the Mandya National Paper Mills… — Company and Corporate | Karnataka HC (2025)

Smt Rathnamma Vs the Mandya National Paper Mills… — Company and Corporate | Karnataka HC (2025)

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:30230-DB OSA No. 23 of 2015

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

ORIGINAL SIDE APPEAL NO.23 OF 2015 IN COMPANY PETITION NO.112 OF 1994

BETWEEN:

SMT. RATHNAMMA W/O. MR. C.D. RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS RESIDING AT QUARTERS NO.99/B M.N.P.M. HOUSING COLONY BELAGULA-571 606 MANDYA DISTRICT.

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI K.A. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by MOUNESHWARAPPA NAGARATHNA Location: High Court of Karnataka

THE MANDYA NATIONAL PAPER MILLS LTD. (IN LIQDN) A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AND MILLS AT BELAGULA-571 606 REPRESENTED BY THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA 12TH FLOOR, RAHEJA TOWERS M.G. ROAD BENGALURU-560 001.

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:30230-DB OSA No. 23 of 2015

HC-KAR

MR. GHOUSE KHAN S/O. LATE RASUL KHAN AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS RESIDING AT QUARTERS NO.99/B M.N.P.M. HOUSING COLONY BELAGULA-571 606 MANDYA DISTRICT.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI K.S. MAHADEVAN, ADVOCATE, FOR R-1, AND SRI MOHAMMED NIYAZ S., ADVOCATE, FOR R-2)

THIS ORIGINAL SIDE APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 483 OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, READ WITH SECTION 4 OF THE HIGH COURTS ACT, PRAYING TO DIRECT RESPONDENT NO.1 TO EXECUTE THE SALE DEED IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT AND TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 31-7-2014 PASSED IN COMPANY APPLICATION NO.2314 OF 2013 IN COMPANY PETITION NO.112 OF 1994 (ANNEXURE-H).

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

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

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:30230-DB OSA No. 23 of 2015

HC-KAR

ORAL JUDGMENT

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

This appeal has been filed by the appellant impugning the order dated 31.07.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in Company Application No.2314 of 2013 in Company Petition No.112 of 1994. The said Company Application was filed by Sri Ghouse Khan, respondent No.2 in the present appeal, for a direction to the Official Liquidator to execute the Sale Deed in respect of Quarters No.99/B in his favour in line with the order dated 16.07.2004 passed by the learned Single Judge in Company Application No.12 of 2002 and also subsequent order dated 11.09.2009 passed in Company Application No.1225 of 2007.

Respondent No.2, Sri Ghouse Khan, contended that he was a former employee of the Company in liquidation and Quarters No.99/B had been allotted in his favour and even though he had attained the age of superannuation, he had continued to reside in the said Quarters. Learned Single Judge while considering similar application in Company Application No.12 of 2002 and connected applications dated 16.07.2004 had arrived at the conclusion that the former employees in

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:30230-DB OSA No. 23 of 2015

HC-KAR

occupation of the Quarters were entitled to allotment of the same and execution of the Sale Deed, subject to the indications made in the said order. Sri Ghouse Khan claimed that he was entitled for allotment of the said Quarters.

The appellant herein claimed that she was in occupation of the said Quarters allotted to Sri Ghouse Khan, respondent No.2 herein. Learned Single Judge in the impugned order held that there was no material to indicate that the appellant herein was an employee of the Company in liquidation, or she had any individual right for allotment of the Quarter and a Quarter belonging to the Company in liquidation had already been allotted to the husband of the appellant. The right of the appellant as she was not an employee of the Company for allotment of the Quarters was rejected by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order.

Nothing has been placed before us to suggest that the appellant was ever an employee of the Company. Her alleged occupation and possession of Quarter No.99/B which was taken over by the Official Liquidator would suggest that her occupation was of a trespasser and unauthorised one. The

5 -

NC: 2025:KHC:30230-DB OSA No. 23 of 2015

HC-KAR

impugned order has dealt with every aspect of the matter. As the appellant was not the employee of the Company and her husband was allotted a Quarter, we find no merit in this appeal and same is hereby dismissed .

Sd/(D K SINGH) JUDGE

Sd/(VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE

KVK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15