Disposed

Kasmisons Builders Private Limited v. State Bank of India

Kerala HC25 Mar 2019WP(C)/4130/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the petitioner bank account holder sought directions to resume operations in their account after an alleged disqualification was lifted. The High Court recorded that the disqualification under Section 164(2) of the Companies Act, 2013 is removed. The court disposed of the petition but cautioned the bank and the disqualified director that other internal impediments or pending pr

What did the court decide?

Court recorded removal of disqualification but declined to direct the bank to permit operations due to potential other impediments.

Kasmisons Builders Private Limited Vs State Bank of India — Company and Corporate | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

MONDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 4TH CHAITHRA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No. 4130 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

KASMISONS BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED, 29/1172 F,JANATHA JUNCTION,SAHODARAN AYYAPPAN ROAD,VYTILLA,KOCHI-682019,REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR AND CHAIRMAN,MR.K.N.MARZOOK, AGED 61 YEARS, SON OF LATE SRI.C.K.KASMI.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.ANIL S.RAJ SMT.K.N.RAJANI SRI.RADHIKA RAJASEKHARAN P.

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 STATE BANK OF INDIA, CSI COMPLEX BRANCH,BROADWAY,KOCHI-682031, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER.

¶11

2 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI.

¶12

**3 ADDL.3. K.N.ABDUL GAFOOR, AGED 54 YEARS SON OF LATE SRI.C.K.KASMI, RESIDENT OF 37/2127, RANGOON, KATHRIKKADAVU, KOCHI-682017.

¶13

**4 ADDL.4.K.N.SHAMSUDDIN, AGED 60 YEARS SON OF LATE SRI.C.K.KASMI, SKYLARK, M.A.BALAKRISHNAN ROAD, KOMPARA, KOCHI-682 018.

¶14

ARE IMPLEADED AS ADDL.R3 AND ADDL.R4 AS PER ORDER DATED 20.02.2019 IN I.A.NO.02/2019 OF WP(C)NO.4130/2019.

¶15

R1 BY SRI.M.JITHESH MENON, SC R3 BY SRI. B. SAJEEV KUMAR R2 BY SRI.A.K.HARIDAS

¶16

WP(C).No. 4130 of 2019 2

¶17

SRI.THOMAS JOHN AMBOOKEN SRI.B.SAJEEV KUMAR

¶18

P.VIJAYAKUMAR SCGC

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

WP(C).No. 4130 of 2019 3

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner

¶23

seeking the following reliefs:-

¶24

“i) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the 1^st respondent to immediately permit further operations in Exhibit P1 account of the petitioner.

¶25

ii) issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Exhibit P4.

¶26

iii) pass such other writ, order or direction that this Honourable Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶27

According to the petitioner, the 1^st

¶28

respondent bank is not permitting to operate the bank account on account of a disqualification imposed against the petitioner under Section 164(2) of the Companies Act, 2013.

¶29

Case of the petitioner is that,

¶30

disqualification has been lifted as per Ext.P3. But, the 1^st respondent refuses to permit operations till a Court/Tribunal order is

¶31

WP(C).No. 4130 of 2019 4

¶32

produced. It is thus seeking appropriate directions, this writ petition is filed.

¶33

The 1^st respondent has filed a detailed statement refuting the claims and allegations raised by the petitioner. Among other contentions, it is stated that, apart from the disqualification under the Act 2013, there are disputes pending between the petitioner and other directors of the company and a suit is pending and therefore, without the signatures of other directors, account cannot be operated by the petitioner. Therefore, other than the reasons assigned in Ext.P4, there are various other reasons, disabling the bank from permitting the petitioner to operate the account.

¶34

The 3^rd respondent has also filed a counter affidavit, almost in similar lines put forth by the 1^st respondent bank.

¶35

However, I am not going elaborately and deep into the contentions put forth by the 1^st and 3^rd respondents, since learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, it would suffice if the disqualification under the Companies Act,

¶36

WP(C).No. 4130 of 2019 5

¶37

that is removed, is recorded by this court.

¶38

In that view of the matter, after hearing respective counsel across the Bar, this writ petition is disposed of recording that, as per Ext.P3, whatever disqualification remaining under Section 164(2) of the Companies Act 2013, is not remaining against the petitioner. This issue is further clarified by learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent stating that, the disqualification against the petitioner is removed as is contended by the petitioner.

¶39

However, I make it clear that, if there are other infirmities standing in the way, or other adverse circumstances disabling the bank from permitting the petitioner to operate the account, the bank will be at liberty to take

¶40

appropriate decision in accordance with its Rules and Laws prevailing.

¶41

So also, learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent submitted that, before the National Company Law Tribunal, Madras Bench, petition filed by the 3^rd respondent is pending, namely, CP 189/2019, challenging removal of the

¶42

WP(C).No. 4130 of 2019 6

¶43

disqualification of the petitioner as per Ext.P3, which is also recorded.

¶44

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

SHAJI P.CHALY

JUDGE

uu 25.03.2019

WP(C).No. 4130 of 2019 7

¶50

APPENDIX

¶51

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶52

EXHIBIT	P1	TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT FOR THE PERIOD FROM 3.8.2018 TO 7.1.2019.
EXHIBIT	P2	TRUE COPY OF LETTER ALONG WITH THE PRINT OUT FROM THE WEBSITE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT	P3	TRUE COPY OF LETTER OF THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH THE LATEST STATUS FROM THE WEBSITE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 3.1.2019.
EXHIBIT	P4	TRUE COPY OF LETTER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT	P5	TRUE COPY OF A CANCELLED CHEQUE LEAF NUMBER 685318 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER IN THE YEAR 2018 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT	P6	TRUE COPY OF PLAINT IN O.S. 229 OF 2019

¶53

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:-

¶54

EXHIBIT R1(A)	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY SR.K.N.ABDUL GAFOOR DATED 01.01.2019
EXHIBIT R1(B)	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY SR. K.N.ABDUL GAFOOR DATED 07.01.2019
EXHIBIT R1(C)	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY SR.K.N.ABDUL GAFOOR DATED 01.02.2019
EXHIBIT R1(D)	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY SR.K.N.ABDUL GAFOOR DATED 13.02.2019
EXHIBIT R1(E)	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY SR.K.N.SHAMSUDDIN DATED 13.02.2019
EXHIBIT R3(a)	TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.229/2019 FILED THE THIRD

¶55

WP(C).No. 4130 of 2019 8

¶56

RESPONDENT BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, ERNAKULAM EXHIBIT R3(b) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 07.01.2019 SENT BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT R3(c) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 13.02.2019 SENT BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT

¶57

//TRUE COPY//

¶58

P.A. TO JUDGE

Kasmisons Builders Private Limited v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kasmisons Builders Private Limited v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Muthupandi Vs the Secretary

Aimee Shibu Vs the Central Board of Secondary Education

Sri Varalakshmi Agencies, Vs Union of India

Singnet Software Solutions Pvt.Ltd., Vs Smart City (Kochi) Infra Structure Pvt. Ltd.

Sajimon K Vs Union of India

Nedumburath Kudumba Trust Vs Revenue Divisional Officer