Disposed¶39

Mr. Anirudh Kedia, v. the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board

Karnataka HC16 Jul 2026CA/398/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru; Jyoti M J; order dated 16-07-2026; Company Application No.398/2024 in CA No.104/2003 in Company Petition No.77/1987; impleading application withdrawn and disposed of; Rule 6 and 9 Companies (Court) Rules 1959; Order 1 Rule 10 and Section 151 CPC 1908; applicants Anirudh Kedia and Shashwat Kedia; Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (KIADB); Official Liquidator of M/s. Shree Chamundi Mopeds Limited; liberty to approach KIADB; no review or modification sought.

What did the court decide?

Company Application No.398 of 2024 disposed of as withdrawn; applicants granted liberty to put forth their grievance and request before the KIADB. ¶39

Mr. Anirudh Kedia, Vs the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

NC: 2026:KHC:36478 CA No. 398 of 2024 In CA No.104 of 2003 In COP No.77 of 1987

¶4

CNR: KAHC010660972024

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶6

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶7

BEFORE

¶8

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M COMPANY APPLICATION NO. 398 OF 2024

¶9

¶10

COMPANY APPLICATION NO.104 OF 2003

¶11

¶12

COMPANY PETITION NO.77 OF 1987

¶13

BETWEEN:

¶14

MR. ANIRUDH KEDIA, S/O. LATE VINEET KEDIA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, RESIDING AT H.NO.70, ATTAUR REHMAN LANE, CIVIL LINES, S.O., NORTH DELHI-110054.

¶15

Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

MR. SHASHWAT KEDIA, S/O. LATE VINEET KEDIA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, RESIDING AT H.NO.70, ATTAUR REHMAN LANE, CIVIL LINES, S.O., NORTH DELHI-110054.

¶17

…APPLICANTS

¶18

(BY SRI. VISHWANATH VENKATESH, ADVOCATE)

¶19

AND:

¶20

THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, NO.14/3, 2ND FLOOR,

¶21

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

NC: 2026:KHC:36478 CA No. 398 of 2024 In CA No.104 of 2003 In COP No.77 of 1987

¶24

CNR: KAHC010660972024

¶25

RASHTROTTHANA PARISHAT BUILDING, NRUPATUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-560001. REPRESENTED BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND MEMBER.

¶26

THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR OF M/S. SHREE CHAMUNDI MOPEDS LIMITED, CORPORATE BHAVAN, 12^TH FLOOR, RAHEJA TOWER, NO.26/27, M.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.

¶27

…RESPONDENTS

¶28

(BY SRI. B.B.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1; MS. KRUTIKA RAGHAVAN, ADVOCATE FOR OL FOR R2)

¶29

THIS COMPANY APPLICATION IS FILED UNDER RULE 6 AND 9 OF THE COMPANIES (COURT) RULES, 1959 ALONG WITH READ WITH ORDER 1 RULE 10 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908.

¶30

THIS COMPANY APPLICATION IS LISTED FOR ARGUMENTS, THIS DAY AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

Sri.Vishwanath Venkatesh., counsel for the impleading applicants; Sri.B.B.Patil., counsel for respondent No.1 and Smt.Krutika Raghavan., counsel for Official Liquidator have appeared in person.

¶33

After arguing the matter for sometime, counsel for the applicants fairly submits that the application in

¶34

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:36478 CA No. 398 of 2024 In CA No.104 of 2003 In COP No.77 of 1987

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

CNR: KAHC010660972024

¶37

C.A.No.398/2024 may be disposed of as withdrawn. When queried, counsel for the applicants submits that a conscious decision is taken about the withdrawal of the application and if an order is passed the applicants shall not seek review of the order or modification of the order.

¶38

The oral submission is placed on record.

¶39

As the counsel on record has taken a conscious decision about the withdrawal of the application, the Company Application is disposed of as withdrawn.

¶40

As the impleading application has been withdrawn, they are at a liberty to put forth their grievance and request before the KIADB.

¶41

Sd/- (JYOTI M) JUDGE

¶42

MRP List No.:2 Sl No.:13

Mr. Anirudh Kedia, v. the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Anirudh Kedia, v. the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Equitas Small Finance Bank Limited Vs Sri. Krishna Murthy

Smt. Premaleela Vs the Authorised Officer

Sri Madhusudhan R Vs M/S Canara Bank

Official Liquidator of M/S. United Breweries (Holdings) Ltd, (in Liqn) Vs M/S Lounge Hospitality LLP

Mrs. Gayithri N Vs Ujjivan Small Finance Bank

Mr. Anirudh Kedia Vs the Official Liquidator of M/S Shree Chamundi Mopeds Limited