M/S Madhu Steel Corporation Vs M/S Innovative Studios Pvt. Ltd.

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 13.03.2014 IN EX.NO. 327/2012 VIDE ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE HON'BLE CITY CIVIL JUDGE, CCH-18 NOW TRANSFERRED TO CCH-38.

¶38

3 -

¶39

NC: 2026:KHC:30148 WP No. 25158 of 2015 C/W WP No. 24956 of 2015

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

IN WP NO. 24956/2015

¶42

BETWEEN:

¶43

M/s.MADHU STEEL CORPORATION NO: 5 & 6 MILLIA BUILDING, N.R.RAOD, IIND CROSS, BANGALORE-560002.

¶44

REP. BY :MR. VIJAY PRAKASH GUPTA, FAMILY MEMBER OF THE HUF, MANAGER OF THE HUF BUSINESS & POA OF THE KARTA OF HUF.

¶45

...PETITIONER

¶46

(BY SMT. DIVYA SWAROOP, ADVOCATE)

¶47

AND:

¶48

M/s.INNOVATIVE STUDIOS PVT LTD

¶49

SARAVANA PRASAD CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR,

¶50

MRS UPASANA MITTAL CEO & EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

¶51

MR M LOKARAJ DIRECTOR-HR,

¶52

MRS RADHIKA ACHUTHAN DIRECTOR-FINANCE,

¶53

MRS HEMA LOKARAJ DIRECTOR,

¶54

MRS SHASHIKALA VENUGOPAL DIRECTOR,

¶55

4 -

¶56

NC: 2026:KHC:30148 WP No. 25158 of 2015 C/W WP No. 24956 of 2015

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

8. MR SUMAN BHAWARALAL PIRAGAL DIRECTOR,

¶59

ALL AT M/s. INNOVATIVE STUDIOS (P) LTD., NO:135, OUTER RING ROAD, VARTUR HOBLI, MARATHALLI JUNCTION, BANGALORE-560 037.

¶60

...RESPONDENTS

¶61

(BY SRI. VIPIN KUMAR JAIN, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R8)

¶62

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 13.03.2014 IN EX.NO.326/2012, VIDE ANNEXUREA PASSED BY THE HON'BLE CITY CIVIL JUDGE, CCH-18 NOW TRANSFERRED TO CCH-38.

¶63

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶64

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶65

ORAL ORDER

¶66

Petitioner is before this Court in these petitions being aggrieved by the orders dated 13.03.2014 passed in Ex.Nos.327/2012 and 326/2012 on the file of XIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, by which the Executing Court has held that the said execution proceedings are maintainable only against Judgment Debtor No.5 and not

¶67

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:30148 WP No. 25158 of 2015 C/W WP No. 24956 of 2015

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

against other Judgment Debtors No.1 to 4 and 6 to 9 respectively.

¶70

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there

¶71

was a financial transaction between the petitioner and Judgment debtors resulting in issuance of cheques which on account of their dishonour, in turn resulted in initiation of proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

¶72

3. Matter was referred to Lok Adalath in which respondent No.5 upon the express authorisation of the other directors of the respondent No.1-company had entered into a settlement. That the said settlement was equally binding on the company as well as the other directors. Accordingly, aforesaid execution petitions were filed in furtherance to the award passed in the Lok Adalath. However, upon the question of maintainability raised by the company and other directors, the Executing Court has passed the impugned orders holding it to be maintainable only against Judgment Debtor No.5, signatory to the memo filed before Lok Adalath and not against other Judgment Debtors. Therefore, he submits that the impugned

¶73

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:30148 WP No. 25158 of 2015 C/W WP No. 24956 of 2015

¶74

HC-KAR

¶75

orders are contrary to law and facts and requires to be set aside.

¶76

4. Heard and perused the records.

¶77

5. Impugned orders refers to an earlier order passed by this Court in Criminal Petition Nos.3260/2012 and 3261/2012 dated 27.06.2012, copies of which are furnished by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Said criminal petitions were filed by the directors of Innovative Studios Pvt. Ltd.,- respondent No.1, respondent Nos.3, 4, 6 to 8 herein and the petitioner herein has been arrayed as a respondent therein. This Court had passed the following:

¶78

ORDER

¶79

"Petitioner has called in question the order dated 29.06.2010 in C.C. No. 20107/2010 on the file of the 15^th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City.

¶80

2. A private complaint was filed by the respondent-complainant U/S 200 Cr.P.C., for offence P/U/S 138 of NI Act. While the proceedings were pending, accused No.5 entered into compromise with the complainant before the Lok Adalat and Lok Adalat recorded the compromise. Interalia observing that if the accused failed to pay the amount as agreed, he shall under go sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of one year.

¶81

3. Learned trial judge has found that the compromise was entered into only by accused No.5, and others have not compromised. Accordingly he has proceeded with the trial against the remaining accused. Considering this I find there is no infirmity in the said proceedings before the trial court. But the Lok Adalat while passing the order has literally imposed the

¶82

7 -

¶83

NC: 2026:KHC:30148 WP No. 25158 of 2015 C/W WP No. 24956 of 2015

¶84

HC-KAR

¶85

sentence against all the accused for which it has no jurisdiction. The order sheet also shows that the accused No.5 shall pay the amount to the complainant. In view of the same, the order dated 29.06.2010 stands modified as it is only applicable to the accused No.5 insofar as other accused are concerned, the trial shall go on.

¶86

4. If the accused No.5 is aggrieved by the order of the Lok Adalat, it is open for him to avail remedy before appropriate forum.

¶87

With the above observation this petition stands disposed of."

¶88

6. On a query by this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has filed an application to recall the aforesaid orders.

¶89

7. In the light of the order passed in the said criminal petitions which is taken note of by the Executing Court and the same being basis for passing the impugned orders in the execution proceedings and said order being still in force, no error or illegality can be found in Executing Court passing the impugned orders.

¶90

8. However, it is open for the petitioner to seek revival of the execution proceedings against Judgment Debtors No.1 to 4 and 6 to 9 if in the event of petitioner obtaining any order in

¶91