"'*w*" WW'W~'W *ww"'wM-"twm-MWwW*w véwwwsw mvwwemas W2 mmmwwmmmmm vrnmww wuwww MW" mfl%E£fi%MfiMWW% WQWW fi~.a%.:aPU¥€.£ W? WMWWMEMKM WWW" %UM%§
.13! IRE HIGH COURT or KARNATAFQ: %
AT BANGALORE
Dated this the 27th day ofauay, 2('_)'(.V)§ " »«
PRESENT.
THE HOWBLE am wsncfi snémnnzm
AND
wan Hormnm Mxi'flJ$sTic:E'V'Am.VinD Kumm
Comfiant; Apfigaz giro 3 (if 2655---
Between: " _. ,
. 'E F!
DEvARA.wrHA'NRA:»1 ..
S/Q. --LAT_E V L {mama RAM *-
AGED AB'C>?;}'1' 701YE.%RS
'R!'V3'._#$5/€>&',x""-.. ~
LANGFO..RD ROAIlv.CR{)S'S'
BANGALORE :55 " ' '
i
1.
APPELLANT
S r:i. 13′ Ramesh, Adm]
.. _FI3’¥WV:BR[£CK$:3§..PO’?YER1ES P LTD
._ RE.’-«P £5? _i_T_S’MANAGiNG DiREC’E’OR
‘ POST §30};.NO 22?5
‘FUMI{URN’AT1ONAL HIGHWAY
YESHWANTHPUR
.A BANGALORE 22
~ RE’;{;31S’FEREE) QFFICE AT
” NAVEEN COMPLEX
7TH FLOOR, M G ROAD
BANGALORE
D BALAKRISHNAN
s/0 LATE} V L DHANARAM
AGED mom’ vs YEARS
Rfti) No 35/4
m-in-K09-flsmi was mmmuwmumawfi EKWIKWFE &’Qa#”%iif’5L£”H{ifi”‘*1i~[.¥”‘ia$%a£””% NWSWW %WU%¥ MW?’ mmflfiwmwmmm %¥”?4fi%Wfi”‘I¢ WWWWQ WW W.cfl”1%%.£§WW%5€~#W§€%.fi’% 9£'”4€$’&?Nf'”£ ‘§aa’b«a”ia&’Ti’§5E ‘W-I9″£” €W”‘@fiflEW:9″%1S#”\}&fi’%.#% I'”fi&’h.fil’Wfl Mwwmm
IQ
LANGFORD ROAD
BANGALORE 25
D VASUDEVAN
s/0 LATE v L DHANARAM
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
R/() No 35/2A
LANGFORD ROAD
BANGALORE 25
D SAMPATH
S/O LATE V L DHANARAM A
AGED AEOUT 66 Vl§2A§”2_g’r. .
Rm NO 35;’3$. ” ” – ‘
LANGFORD ROAD
BANGALORE 25’
D Govinafm
S/Q ‘vi-hi} £5H}.N.ARgm”‘– ; V
AGED Agosyrvis ,YEm_f~2’s ‘
R/0N<5T'.;–1,' ':;OGF*E~': ROAD,'-
B'm;LAYou*1'v.*;
BANGALORE 53,’-._
S/’:C3.vLATE N.fiG?;vP§’)A SHETTY
MEKJOR ” ‘ V
122, CUNNiNG’H15xM RUSH
<.£3ANC}A}f.QR'E'.v52
— ‘V
1s’,’~o RN
;avI_AJ€_)E€~ _
NAVEEN CGMPLEX
7TH 3?’L{)OF2 14, M G ROAD
” AA .:3mc.’ALOR1:
‘s3:5″i~a:L R SHETTY
g s/0 R.N SHETTY
T MAJOR
NAVEEN COMPLEX
7’i’H FLOOR 14, M G ROAD
BANGALORE
QWWNE WW fiflflwflfiflfifi ¥’N%8’?'”§ %.eWJ$u¥W§,fi.<$;'_§?" Wfiflflfiflfifififl WEWW mwwwa WW mmmwwwsmm 3"W¥W¥"¥& mwm-m WW mmwewmsmmm wrswm mwwmw WK" mMW§%mmmmWw mnstwwns wmmwms
18
the parties and the appellarity-petitioner ~ V.
instituted a fresh petition ibr relief under V’
and 398 of the Act and the same
that is an independent question and”-is.t i’1as z1(,’)fi’1;i:Ivi1g” to’; ‘V
with the present appeal.
21. Likewise, the fmd;fi1 g.. gym in the
present appeal not the penéing
proceedings and it is
made clear silbsequem cause of
action, {lie in this order W11} have
no aflci say’ has been presented by
_ the very ‘appeHam:_V’Vbe1’o1″se the Company Law Board has to
examined on its merit and not based on
arse. V”ear1ie»1″j_v.zieiéeiepment er proceedings between the
V .part.ie s. eiartifieation, this apps-gl is dismissed.
Sd/-3
Judge
ad/-g
4 «*PJWk 311.5439