M/S Mresult Services Private … vs M/S Pan Electronics (India) … on 29 September, 2010

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALOwRE««..E_E'~v« _

DATED THIS THE 29"' DAY OF SI'EPTEMBER,_'2IV'.:)HI(')':'    

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.N. 1§I';AGZ§Nii(3H23I.N'I)r}\.§ 

BETWEEN :

COMPANY PETITIONENQ. 1II'9,'2aO09_   

M/S. MRESULT SERVICES  ~
PRIVATE LIMITED
504~«506,5THFLOOR,      I 
WEST WING, RAHEIAff'OW';ERS     ~ 
26~27,MGROA_D   -    I
BANGALORE -5560,-00.1    I

REP. BY ITS DVIREC'l'0R:__  R. "

MR. MOHAN NAII-C; ... PETITIONER

(BY Sri. ADITYA« SOI~IDII.1;._AD.\f.)<« 

AND:

AM./S.» RAN VEI.,AEC'FR:ONICS

(IND.IA}_H.I.I1\I{'FED, EEGD. OFFICE
"vEN;;ON'HO'GSE'i;,2:No. 69

v_ "*-=*III CROSS, CUBBONPET
 BANGALORE: 560 002
.1.'-:A:V ' P'L' BY ITS MANAGING
, ._DIRECTO.R.  RESPONDENT

 (35; SE. NI G IAVEED AHMED KHAN &
=  SBYRARPA, ADVS.)

§ V»./v\



THIS COMPANY PETITION IS FILED UNDER sEC_TION,_H._
43mg) AND (D luau) warn SECTKNY 4%: OR THE: 4,
COMPANIES ACT, 1956, WITH A PRAYER TO WINl_)_=?...JP  

RESPONDENT COMPANY AND ETC.

THIS PETITION COMING ON ;:'o"R'"H5A.R1NIO:_':

DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWI1\§,'(_:3";'~ 

0RDER}_

In this petition filed under Section the iCornipanies

Act, I956 the petitioner is praying for  respondent
-Company.  A' it A it  C
2.  under an agreement of

lease dated  A they have taken on lease
the premisea beari'Hgp.iNo, '26:2_"i[i§dahatma Gandhi Road, Bangalore
:_,:'and,_a1sOi,,,tii1e ;fi1:rrIi.tI.Ire iar1d"fi'xtures. Under a separate agreement for

secuprity ».;ia:ia:d1:,,24.12.2004 the respondent Company has

i it'v...v.,received_ar1d ac;i<iniovY;1edged the security deposit of Rs.18,26,000/--

.. from the petitioner Company.



The respondent Company in its reply dated 26.06.2009 denied7tlhe._V

liability to refund the security deposit. The respondent  

contends that the lease in favour of the petitioner Cornpanyi isiinot

terminated. The petitioner Company has not re-t11rr}ed--..tlie.lfurniture  so

leased to them and therefore the question of refuizdinge.thegiecurity
deposit will not arise. Therefore the petiti'oner.is before.-.this Court in
this petition.

5. Heard argi.apments__.on, uotli _th€_§li(f.3 llandmplerused the entire

petition papers.

6. The respondent Company was the owner of premises and
furniture in question is not --dis'p.1__it'e."Further it is not in dispute that

under a lease deedV..ida'teid 122.2004 as per Annexure A the

'respondent Coinpiany leased the premises and furniture on rental

basis lto.*t.he »;5eti,tio1i.e:.--1~' Further it is not in dispute that under an

liil'liia3reemeii«t of'v___sec-uiiity deposit dated 24.12.2004 as per Annexure B

if "i:v".r'espondent Conipany acknowledged the receipt of security deposit

/,7 'NA



of Rs.l8,26,000/--. .lt is also not in dispute that the secured creditor

by name Tarnilnadu Industrial Investment Corporation Limited.

invoked the provisions of State Financial Corporations AC_C"éi11d.'uso.1§d'i. ;. it '

the leased premises and furniture in a public auction invfa..V:(i)'l1vF the

petitioner Company. Thus by operation of law tiheiieaise hetweenlthe ;, at

petitioner and respondent Company carrie tolbev_iterminate'dy::  
also the finding of this Court in its dated l)"i'.whi1e
admitting this petition. Thereiore' thecontention.:of__the respondent
Company that the lease._betwe:enVth_e:'par--ties_isi"riot':ie.:'niinated is not

acceptable to me.  

7. Learned icouiisell'aforiiiie respondent Company further

contendsihat what was"-mortgaged in favour of the secured creditor --

lTan;ilr1'adu Invdtilstriaiv Investment Corporation Limited was only the

 _ V premiseishi  hy way of deposit of title deeds and not the

 furniture.' It  seen from the record that the petitioner Company

 vvith the rejoinder filed a search report by the Company

 ___Se'creiéary as per Annexure P. This report specifies that there was a

/W/\



9

10. For the reasons stated above, the foilowing;

II.

III.

EV.

ORDER

The petition is hereby allowed.

The respondent Company is hereby order:ed'<to_~

wound up.

The Official Liquidator is appointed.asialsiirgiiidatorsof 7

the respondent Company’.

Petitioner Company shall idepositua sum RS.2f)’i,000/–
with the Official –Iiir;uid;atori_ ineehtiiep initial winding

up expenses. _ V

hi-Petiitioner’ take out advertisement of this

oiaeif in Vonei’ediii.ioin of ‘VIJAY TIMES’ English

I_i\E’ewspapervandv’SANJEVANI” Kannada Newspaper

Vii

,i,__WiI*hini”fourteen days from the date of receipt of copy
ioi”.ti’I’i1’§si..i’)rder.

.. Petiitioner Company to serve certified copy of this

order with the Registrar of Companies within thirty

/7″”

‘t

E0

days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Ordered accordingly.

Sd/-.

LRS/30092010.

Judge       Q