Dismissed¶¶32

Bifr v. M/S Ngef Ltd.

Karnataka HC4 Jun 2026CA/69/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

BIFR impleading applicant; M/s NGEF Ltd.; Company Application dismissed as not pressed; Order 1 Rule 10(2) C.P.C.; Section 151 C.P.C.; Rules 6 and 9 Company Court Rules 1959; COP No. 154 of 2002; CA No. 184 of 2015; High Court of Karnataka; Justice Jyoti M; 04-06-2026; vakalath Saji P. John.

What did the court decide?

On counsel for the applicant stating that a conscious decision had been taken not to press Company Application No. 69 of 2026, the Court dismissed the application as not pressed. ¶¶32

Bifr Vs M/S Ngef Ltd. — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:26375 CA No. 69 of 2026 In CA No. 184 of 2015 In COP No. 154 of 2002

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M COMPANY APPLICATION NO. 69 OF 2026

¶8

¶9

COMPANY APPLICATION NO.184 OF 2015

¶10

¶11

COMPANY PETITION NO. 154 OF 2002

¶12

BETWEEN:

¶13

BIFR, 8TH FLOOR, JAWAHAR VYAPAR BHAVAN, 1, TOLSTOY MARG, NEW DELHI-110001.

¶14

…APPLICANT

¶15

(BY SRI. H.P.GANGESH GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR IMPLEADING APPLICANT)

¶16

AND:

¶17

Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶18

M/S NGEF LTD., REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES, COMMERCE AND NODAL OFFICER, NGEF LTD., KHANIJA BHAVAN, BENGALURU-560001.

¶19

…RESPONDENT

¶20

(BY SRI. SAJI P.JOHN, ADVOCATE)

¶21

THIS COMPANY APPLICATION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 1 RULE 10(2) READ WITH SECTION 151 OF C.P.C. AND READ WITH RULE 6 AND 9 OF THE COMPANY COURT RULES, 1959.

¶22

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

¶23

¶24

NC: 2026:KHC:26375 CA No. 69 of 2026 In CA No. 184 of 2015 In COP No. 154 of 2002

¶25

HC-KAR

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

Sri.H.P.Gangesh Gowda., counsel for the impleading applicant has appeared in person.

¶28

Sri.Saji.P.John., counsel has appeared in person and undertakes to file power on behalf of the respondent.

¶29

Submission is noted. Office is directed to accept the vakalath filed by counsel Sri.Saji.P.John.

¶30

After arguing the matter for sometime, counsel for the applicant submits that the application in C.A.No.69/2026 may be dismissed as not pressed. When queried, counsel for the applicant submits that a conscious decision is taken about the non-pressing of the application and if an order is passed the applicant shall not seek review of the order or modification of the order.

¶31

The oral submission is placed on record.

¶32

As the counsel on record has taken a conscious decision about the non-pressing of the application, the Company Application is dismissed as not pressed.

¶33

SD/(JYOTI M) JUDGE

¶34

MRP List No.:1 Sl No.:15

Bifr v. M/S Ngef Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bifr v. M/S Ngef Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

H Alkurappa Vs the Divisional Controller

Punjab National Bank Vs M/S. Maxollin Developer Pvt. Ltd. Co.

Sri Rajesh Nair Vs Hdfc Bank Limited

Thyagappa Vs the Managing Director

Chaturbhuj L Vs Official Liquidator of Vajra Cements and Minerals Private Limited (in Liqn)

M/S. Shoma Automation Pvt. Ltd. Vs State Bank of India