High Court Karnataka High Court

E M Shivamani Engineering … vs Mrs S Lakshmi on 5 November, 2008

Karnataka High Court
E M Shivamani Engineering … vs Mrs S Lakshmi on 5 November, 2008
Author: Deepak Verma K.Ramanna


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALl? RE

DATED THIS THE 51%! DAY OF’ Novsmagggfipéjzé ‘

PRESENT

‘THE HOWBLE MR.Jus’rIc.-53’ i5EE:=AHoos.

3 ‘r N: __

ma/3.2. M. sfiivémmgx vséwsififieéifio

(i~”R’iVATE}’ 1;’m_,,”:; _ .
REP. BY,I’I’S MAhI£sGIN’G 1i>1R.11:ai.:_1*r:>1″g–
Mr.S.MU’RAL!DEI.ARr’:N,, ”
N0.47-C, 515368033,’
BOMMASANDRA .IN1’2t_1s’zfRIA:;’LwARB;A,
BANGALORE

– .. 2.S.Z£§£5RA.1JQ.HARAN;”* ———- ~ ”

VMANACRNG DIRECTOR,

°« E. MEHIVAMANI “ENGINEERING

(PRIVATE), T~ – . V
47:~c;«sm CROSS;

Bomuasgmnmx INDUSTRIAL AREA,

V . BANGALORE”-$560099.

” q _3.BU SHILA MURAIJDHARAN,
” _ E.M’.»SIT-HVAMANI ENGINEERING
(PRIVATE) L’I’D.,
.,, _47’_4C, Sm CROSS,

BOMMASANDRA INDUSTRIAL AREA,

1′ BANGALORE — 550 099.

(BY M/s.PRAMIlA ASSTS.)

.. APPEL£.AN’!”$

“Té>

&

smxsamz,
R/A’I’.NO.8,

suaeaxm REDDY ROAD.

mmsuau,
BANGALORE -~ 550 003. ‘z2.EsjPo;$mE1~rr

(BY SM’!’.JAYNA,. KQ’F§~I§1%.R!,”‘_ ADV.’ AND SRI
C.K’NANfiAKUMAR,ADV.v} A ” ,

f ::tt§;¥V§i: Ky
THIS cqmigm ggppm; {$”*~’. §=_;g,E_Dij'{.:i/S. 105′ 0? THE
COMPANIES _m;’,_1§_és§. AC3_A_§NS’!’ .fni-19: ORDER DATED 15/4/2-007
AND 23/12/£29075 }9;xssEnv”::iI%A¢¢.%P.N<2.2o/2007 mm;-2:: BY ma
HONBLE 'cs:a_%£;m 'BQARD, 'PRWVCIPAL BENCH, CHENNAI.

TI-iisu APPEA};' AI.fc2r.»i§1~a;:T:{ir.:.=. "ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY,
seam: vERMA.J,, DELNERED THE F'0LLOW!NG:

appearing on both sides are

_ present.,__*’ -.

A. 2…V’V–*!:§aIe:no has bwn filed by the learned counsel for

ti3e””.aéspoIuient mentioning thcre’m that this company

has been pmferred aminst an ‘mtcrim order pawcsd

U bythe CcmpanyLawBoardand noewwiththemssagcof

timmthcmattcrhasalzweadybccnhmrdonmcritsbythe
“E5

-:3=-

Company Law Board in the mtmth of
and is reserved for passing of 3;-;’ » T

been contmxded that for all ”

appeal has been rendered mfructuo’ k
the appellant We fiflfefim»
will be served by it sé mamar
Board %%%% A

3. dismissed as having
been rmd¢;~eaF%%;°nm%&%Lk ,% to bear their own
«

Sd/w
Judge

Sd/-a
Ififlge