{N THE HEGH CQURT CF KARNATAKA, BANGALCERE}.-~.__
DATES mzs mg 1013 my 0? JULY, 2009 2' f ~
PRESENT 5"
'THE: HGWBLE MR. 4213395 av.sHYLENQ32;A_A'_:§ur§%(%§R_ 3
AND -
THE HON'BLE; MR. JUSTECE gz_RAVg_': N;3 :.;m;a;g%R% _
o.s.A no.13,T0'F 2o'<'2sg -
comma? APP:.IcA'r1oH..gg. 92651995
Hi!
c:o.Ps'r1'1;1_-z_x1v m'0.2 3-3994.
BETWEEN
M/5 Ravisha;r;;kaI?' '
Fertilizers _I}_cai€:.r$,' V
No.47, 5133 Crdssgf.
Ravimi1'aQ_Nagar,V V
Shimoga }:}iSt;t:i.(:!;, --
§6pz"e$e:1ter.:i=.by~its
P:r0p1'iet_0:" RaViishan,k:g_r.A'--._ V '
' " V : Appeflant
(Bf , Acivocata}
M/3 Agra ,.§'nTpii:€$ Limited
' (En. Liquidatian)
" R'-zzgfzresentad by Official Liqjuidater,
' fittachefi to the Hozfble High Court
" _C}E Kamaiaka, IV Floor,
* « 'D' wing, iiexxdriya Saciana,
V ..Ba,§iga10rew34.
: Resipozldent
' (By Sr£V.Jayaram with fieeipak, Qificial Liquiziatm')
filed a Company Application No.926}1996 for .,
of Rs.1,23,955/-- from the appeuant herein '
Ravighankar Traders. 'Though appellguifwas
notice sf said application; éiii not (to ij
contest the matter. Hence, an t '¥)§ -péi.';:{séc§~ by
the leaxned Company Jugige o:;..Q'%}'fi?_--20Q0 the
said order. Questioning tkié was filed in
{i).S.A.No.22/200--*=%_ ' appellant
hexeaén. siw;;~.,V gkéferring the said,
(}.S.A.Nof_22 {his Court dismisseci
'Q16: 021* __ delay as per order dated
83?»-2065, by the same prefermd a
S.L.P.'.3?{é.'VQ&4025/QQQSV'bcfiare Holfble: Suprems Court of India
numbered as Civil Appeal N0.5i2'I"6f 200'?
"-t<':fC1;1 fI;;¢5:--:"0rcier passed in O.S.A.No.22/2004 afid
_rem.ittad ghé,- i"nAatter back to the Division Bench of this
if¥01:;'§:)£:: H Cafiurt for hearing the appeal 01:; merim by
_:C (i}Zv1§('L{W?}n'1:Iig thti deizay as per the 0X'd€I"S dated 16-1 I-»2{}G'?.
this Court by order fiateé 7-34286.18 O.S.A.Ne; 2/=
4. 3:1 matter betrlg rémitied to the Divis'<);:1 Bench cf
to be aflowed and the matter was remitted ":0 the Itamgd
Company Judge: for hearing the appwaflant as also the
Liquidater after afibrd:i.:1g opportiunity. Thus in--..':éff¢c-gf "
Order dated 11«~6~2{){}4 passed in
"E9 1?] 2003 was sat aside by the: i)ivis:ion £§e;t1{:h'TTof :7
its GSA 22/ 2094.
5. On matter being 1"e:mittc:1"'t§{_: ttié-» _Lea1°1:1€ti~AAC0fi1pamy
Judge it was listsd for flea:-31$ to hear the
Company Appligtaaifiioxx under the
responde:viftM"}istdA. for fVéé€vuvery of Rs.1,28,Q543/--.
G11 the 'daft: ..(§a:111c to be adjourned by two
Wéfikfi at th€ n=.q:1e.st'V-.of' i"espom:£ent's ceunsal i,€., the
;b_h:e1'§~:i1:1. the matter came 1:0 be listed hefom
Judge on 3~?»2(}08 and fefiowing
i'3r(.1e:f'£E:amé passed:
V. " ,."V§\)2}:§-éécztions am not filed by the appiicant in
" :,$A. 9"25[96. However, as; 3 last chance, two
V' were waeks' time is granted. if tbs objections
are not filed xvithixz two weeks, obj€c:ti<:1:1s are
W
t:iee:med to haw been waived."
6. The said order was prfiemptive in nature: i1'1Eif{§1?. C'}f71 .A
as an outer Emit of two Wseks had been graniéd "
respondent in C.A.No,926/96 for f1]j3:1g r3}:~,j<:;¢3:§.<:=é 1:§V." Ad.ii:i{fi:ri_1j;
the statement of cbbjetctic,-1:13 tog) CA.No.§26}_’_’19’§6:wfis 3I
by the: respondent therein i.e.,V»é§§pt;11a1it”
outer limit. fixed by the: , Eilicigcj.
Thereafterwards the ma1v;ft:;:7g:to:’:o;3. _’§’–8–2008, on
which date the apfgiaiigant }1€’1’iE:?if1′: CA926/96
made an ati€:.1_11.;$%V However, the
learned Igéfzgsed to entertaixx the
said bjek%; 3’o1_1:§A51?;-“‘:h§F’grQ’u§§itiflzat the order dam axmoos
was 3 prccmpfim: oi1:ierAanéf’–.siii<:e it was not filed withija the
time stgytiiatedg '€;£'1¢ rc5'qu§§stT<:)f the respondent thersin to file
Qbjefifiéns was rajccted by holding that the
to have Waivsd his right.
T_hé15éfier Wards the appellant harem fiied twezrr
-A _. ., 4A4″—3i )*t§}¥»¥”;€T§’iT;i0§;[§ iufiw’ C.A.N0.’7OOj G8 and 27631} 2008 with 3 piayer
the order datefi 3~?’~;2{)O8 arzd 1:0 receive the
_’€:-bj-ziictzisns to the iiinmpany Agpficafion NQ926/1996.
‘Lcarneé. Company Judge by crxrdsr éatcd 5~2~2{)(}9 held that
D ”
the queation of nzcalling 1111!? older 3~’?~2{}()8 did _::_:_ot
arise since the said. oxfier has mezrged with the easier-«
7»-8-2(}(}8. Accozdingly both C.A.Nos.7′(}G ané fife: ~
came to be dismissed.
8. The: appellant beirzg aggrievedfay ‘:sai1;€_v i.’:§.’s 7}:
up in pnéscnt appea} ¢or:tendin%g ._fha3t thérzj was
on the part cf the appe11a1__1t and. hafi “batty piiaking
eagmest efi’o1t$ t0 ciefemi ixifihsaif at all stagcs
carried the 1natte3″Aa1:;.£1 e§reIi*’tt§’ Cnurt to
defend x;js’%”1ega.}¢;ma£é*%;V %%ng;;;g%. aiso contended that
preem;3ti§%;.«c§ifler 3§Vas;.5e.c:i>T’o§i’T’–f§:§}?~2iOO8 was not neticfid and
had 3.3.39 tenaeréd csajeciiguzxs in com on 7–8~2008 i.::.,
__:.;x1c:_-:1; <:{éi1ic:vv–.e,f:».f«hea.1'§.3z:1.g after 3~'2*–200s and thus
t1:;;6:§".é"w2;sv..:1u§'vziiiigence. The appellant also submits that if
thés case is afforéed, agapellant Wouid
' 'ha ablé tc;:"dc.fi'onstrate the falsity of the claim made by {he
épfifiéagt 1%; (3.5. No.926,' zgga.
9.P¢r aofltra the leamed counsel appearing for the
‘ ;:€spand€:n1: Wank} C(}I}.I:’321d that admitted}? the applicafion
my
CA 926/1996 Wa$ filed an the basis 0f the statementfif
afiairs filed by the Ex–Diz’ector of the Company
since been wound up and claims that <:omp'e:zny* «j « *
Ravisharzkar Traders Gwesti 3 sum of, R.S.__1,28_','§.S6';:§_'
Company which has been wound»u1i:. 3f
mquimd 1:0 he fiistxibutfid ts t11é _{"Er.§:dit–{51fs-3eL'1(_i *g§¢:;:~a..ig.g:y
prayad for éismissal of the _appeal.__ : – T I V
10. We have givrsm ézgizsideratian to the
argumems advanced by the”is::3§}:’:1E5d_.V”C;3ui:sxf:1S” and we have
gaeruscd wt: that this appeal has
chequ£:red””+i:éi%:ef jf:<3n1 the year 1§96 and has
3130 k1::Q¢1<6:d t13.t: "do{)i–fs. cr._1; Hon'b1e Supreme Court. By
' i'£1_I'I3. évcnts aS"':19.–.1'rated herein above, {he C.A.N<::.
been taken up for considemtian on marits
and't1i€V«pr0¢£,§L_}i;iisg}$ art": stallecl duct 31:3 hiccups. After having
' 3563:": :'€3bsj.és'::tio11s which was sought to be filed by
hersin bafcem the leatrzed Comgany Judge on
_ We are of the <);:2inia:m that in 13:16 intsmst af daing
*.;VéV.231V7i::'s'si;a_:1{ia1 and camfilete jzisticfr hmtwean the paxfiss, to
a «permit the appeiiant hsrein. to» fiifi objectians '(,9 Company
1"'?
Application No.926/1996. Hcrwever, this should
strict fctters as Gthersvisc on tcc}.:13:1icalitie$ the A’
should not be stailed thereby contributing to d;:}9.y;_: K V” ” 9
we pass the following:
(i)
V.J*
GSA 13/2009 is a11o”s§x$?£*:é: c;:r1 pay’:-mgit .%;»£ éqsié, cf
Rs.5,D€)G/«~ payable 1;:g”a§§pgfia;;t Wi’iic’11 to be
deposited befefe : t;j1′;.:=:”¥)fiiit::i駔Z;iqf£idator for being
<:mdited__t-:3 the_a;c§ioa1n'€_V of t}'):€:'V#;4€;'2.§:0:i1d€fl{ herein
azid ib.:f:VL:V1"er€itf:r g passed in
cqm;s._m3;<..-;a;–;§;§;i¢afiag 1$;o;g;7Q0 and 701/2008 in
" piiC§fion ..¥:§V€V{iV§'§2¥2Ei/ 1996 in Company
[is set aside. Consequently,
thg; ordé-m"da1edT"–_(3é?»20o3 as also 7-8-'ZOO8 are
' ~ _ set a-&;.i{ie; "
~%.%<:i;
liféappefiant is permitted to file statement of
jj”»1c;fn’§é:;~r:;ju1s to Application 310.926/I996 within
_«£¥i’€%_$$’e<2ks fmm today, subject to deposit of £1161
Aéabéve said aamunt of Rs.5000/ ~ as Costs.
H The mspondem: is pexmitteé to fiie rejoindar if
any wiizhin (Elf: Wfifik {ram the fiats of mcaipt of
W
the statement of objecficns.
(iv) The said statemant of abjections taken
-.’ 5}»-‘
will be considered on merits axid ~
C.A.No.926/ 1996 in accordance: wi:.h..a,a_§z, V ”
11. in View of the order
O.S.A.No.13/2009, the ‘o£_
Misc.Cv1.8672/2009 does not iris h€%’駒.)}T._I’fl]l.Fg:§C{€(i.
A .
Parties art: directed tQ.w’se:ajr co§x§:'<::L»o;fx