Prestige Projects Private Limited Vs Mr K L a Padmanabhasa

PRESTIGE PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS OFFICE AT PRESTIGE FALCON TOWER NO.19, BRUNTON ROAD BENGALURU - 560 023. REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MR.ARUN S RAO

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI.UDAYA HOLLA AND SRI.C.K.NANDA KUMAR, SENIOR COUNSEL'S FOR SRI.RAGHURAM CADAMBI, ADVOCATE)

¶13

Digitally signed by NAGARAJA B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

AND:

¶15

MR.K.L.A PADMANABHASA

¶16

SINCE DECEASED, REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES

¶17

MR. K.P.GHANSHYAM

¶18

SON OF LATE K.L.A PADMANABHASA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

¶19

SMT. A MANJULA DAUGHTER OF LATE K.L.A PADMANABHASA AGED MAJOR

¶20

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:22715 WP No. 13104 of 2026

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

SMT.K.R.SRIDEVI DAUGHTER OF LATE K.L.A PADMANABHASA AGED MAJOR

¶23

SMT.VIDYAVATHI DAUGHTER OF LATE K. L. A PADMANABHASA AGED MAJO RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 4 ARE RESIDING AT NO.9/1, SESHADRI ROAD GANDHINAGAR BENGALURU - 560 009

¶24

KHODAYS BREWERIES PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT BREWERY HOUSE, 7^TH MILE KANAKAPURA ROAD BENGALURU 560 062 REP.BY IT'S DIRECTOR

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI.DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI.ARJUN RAO, ADVOCATE FOR C/R.1)

¶27

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE/QUASH THE ORDER DATED 02.04.2026 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU BENCH IN C.A.NO.140/BB/2024 IN C.P.NO.67/BB/2024, PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE A AND ETC.

¶28

3 -

¶29

NC: 2026:KHC:22715 WP No. 13104 of 2026

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶32

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶33

ORAL ORDER

¶34

The captioned writ petition is filed assailing the order dated 02.04.2026 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (for short 'NCLT'), Bengaluru Bench in C.A.No.140/BB/2024 in CP No.67/BB/2024.

¶35

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsels appearing for the respondents.

¶36

The short point that needs consideration is;

¶37

Whether the Tribunal while passing orders on the vacating application was justified in rejecting the application on the ground that one of the party to the main Civil Petition has died and therefore, the causetitle of the application is not amended, which was filed when the original petitioner was alive?

¶38

Finding on the point for consideration;

¶39

A peculiar and rather uncommon situation presents itself before this Court, where the learned Senior

¶40

4 -

¶41

NC: 2026:KHC:22715 WP No. 13104 of 2026

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

Counsel as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respective contesting parties are ad idem and canvass in

¶44

one voice that the impugned order cannot be sustained and warrants interference at the hands of this Court.

¶45

Upon a careful consideration of the material on record and the procedure adopted by the Tribunal, this Court finds, prima facie, that the approach of the Tribunal suffers from a fundamental procedural infirmity. It is not in dispute that during the pendency of the proceedings, the death of one of the parties was duly reported and consequential steps were taken to bring the legal representatives on record. Once such substitution is effected, the proceedings stand duly continued in the presence of the legal heirs, and the lis survives for adjudication on merits.

¶46

However, the Tribunal has proceeded to reject the application seeking vacation of the interim order on the hyper-technical ground that the interlocutory application,

¶47

5 -

¶48

NC: 2026:KHC:22715 WP No. 13104 of 2026

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

which was instituted at a point of time when the deceased party was alive, did not reflect the subsequent event of death. This reasoning, in the considered view of this Court, clearly discloses a misdirection in law. Neither the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, nor the procedural framework governing proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunal, mandate that every pending interlocutory application must be formally amended to reflect subsequent events such as death of a party, once appropriate substitution has already been effected in the main proceedings.

¶51

The insistence on such a procedural formality, which finds no statutory backing, amounts to elevating form over substance and results in manifest injustice. Procedural law is intended to facilitate the course of justice and not to thwart it by importing requirements which are neither contemplated nor warranted. The Tribunal, therefore, has adopted an approach which is not only

¶52

6 -

¶53

NC: 2026:KHC:22715 WP No. 13104 of 2026

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

legally unsustainable but also contrary to the settled principles governing procedural adjudication.

¶56

In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order is vitiated by patent illegality and procedural impropriety, rendering it unsustainable in law. Accordingly, point for consideration is answered in the "Negative" .

¶57

For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following:

¶58

ORDER

¶59

(i) The writ petition is hereby allowed .

¶60

(ii) The impugned order dated 02.04.2026 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench, in C.A.No.140/BB/2024 in C.P.No.67/BB/ 2024, produced at Annexure-A, is hereby quashed and set-aside.

¶61

(iii) Having regard to the fact that pleadings are complete and the learned counsel on both sides have substantially addressed their submissions, the Tribunal is

¶62

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:22715 WP No. 13104 of 2026

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

directed to take up the matter and dispose of the same on merits, in accordance with law, within an outer limit of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶65

(iv) All pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and stand disposed of accordingly.

¶66

Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶67

NBM

¶68

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28

Prestige Projects Private Limited v. Mr K L a Padmanabhasa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prestige Projects Private Limited v. Mr K L a Padmanabhasa

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

Sri Dilip Appachu Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S India Shelter Finance Corporation Limited Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Jay Jagannath Wood Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Suvarna Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Vinay Varma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri N S Anand Vs Karnataka State Bar Council