Karnataka High Court
M/S D A Marketing Limited vs M/S Mysore Kirloskar Limited on 21 October, 2008
_(13YV_»3-RI: iv; §1AIéfi;BAL_EH_$}iv@.RA GPUD, AW. , }
k
1 comm-Jj.r' IN Llgummrmxi
REP BY -mg OFFICIAL LZQUID}3\C['d{
. ' ..j£=E* 'Tag HEGH comm 05" K2:xmA*nAioR, D 5;. R WING
_ KENDRIYA SADAN, Ko
.HsANGAL0RE
V' (BY SRI DEEPAK & SR1 V JAYEXRPM P«.DVS., FOR OL)
_ 1 _ '
IN THE 3168 COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BAfieAL§R§
DATED THIS THE 21"'DAX OF OTQBé% é§58n
BEF0RE~~H hk . u
THE HON'BLE MRs.JUsTIég é % kAQAé§j§&g:?
COAJN&Afi§§LgQg§V A ' %
:r-.1_ * _ ._
cc). 9 . m.1--1__€;_§/ 2.001
BETWEEN ""_'f" '
M/s.9.A.MAR:§aT__I;me 'L:1ym*;3r: 2
REGISTEREB _C$F§"IC3:=";.;__ :1 99/1'
oxym 1_NE3USTR;£_2~'=xL '?AREA'~.,_
PHASE:-~I'-,-. NEW E31a'.;:;.j;z.:' -
REP BY ITS 'AuT1:§>RI'zE:2:2.__s:r§NA3=0RY
A _ fl r ..APPLICL7%I\3"I'
4_'_.--r,-.'-
M/' $;«E{§YSQ~RE':@jE{iRLOSKP£R LDHTED
. . . RES?ONmNl"
...3...
land, plant and machinery for the psrsoss of
assessing their value and the applicahtnsaguto
also directed to deposit a gum of Rs,25,QGO/9
with the Official LiTq1,1idVa4'*J.C>:j:--,_ fO1i':,."_l_T:i?'te'
purpose, which he has Kcomplisd Ewito, He
further states that tbs agslicant, slong with
the Valuer, went to tbs soot oޤ3;lO.2GO8, but
could not *,oomfileté7 vthsfi_iihspection and
valuatiofi"WQnfintfiéfl'saidl date. Under the
circuhstanc@s,ihsl§%ays for ten more days time
to carry out the ifisosction.
x"u3;it?sf contra, learned counsel for the
Qfficialifidquidator, while opposing the said
'*,applioation, submits that the time sought is
*ionfsasonable and it is impracticable for the
i"»li dffioial Liquidator and his other officers to
be present for such a long period of time at
Ex
V
-4-
the spot when the inapection is to be cayfiién .
out. Under the circumstances, he QhjeCtS_t§'
any' extension. of time being _arantéd'etc;,th@i}
applicant.
4. Taking nate ei_ the ufact ithat by
order dated' 25.§V_.V_2'o.Q3[,;__'V fcoert had
permitted ina9eCtion§'5fi'the~ assets of the
respQn$ant*;Qom§anf and thé fact that the same
eeeld nQt'-- on 3.10.2008 eed in
orde: to ahsnre that the obfiect and purpose of
""inspéctio nan ifialuation is achieved, two daya
::"'3'.4aav4R'fijiranted viz., 25.10.2008 and
2é;'..lb.2o.c8'f--.V.lee ee to enable the applicant to
i"«_Wcarry"gat the inspection and value the assets
V7§f_the respondent ecompany which, in my view,
“q,i’wdu1d meet the ends of justice,. fifi
V
-5-
5. Accordingly, this _]x l:C@m@afiy7l
application is allowed.