High Court Karnataka High Court

Office Of The Official Liquidator vs The Secretary on 4 February, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Office Of The Official Liquidator vs The Secretary on 4 February, 2009
Author: Mohan Shantanagoudar


Official_Liquid§for)

BETWEER

OFFICIAL LIQUIDATGfl.QF nf, ;a *
H?5.INEBLIN5’TEUHflO GGIES<TPILTD.,
[IN LIQUIDAI£ON1'.'.' "kV A
ATTACHE5 re, HIGH sonar OE KARMAIAKA,
Iv FLOOR 'D:§ rv WIRGm__ f
KENDRI¥A_sanAfi;-Kngananeéna,
BAnagLoRE':5a_n34._»_—

v ” ‘% -Fa’-j*.» ..JPPLICIlT

(BY SRI.fiEEP33£K £’!”;.uJAYARAH, ADVOCATE for

« I

1 sscn:=~;m
‘HAKAKEREJGaanapancnarara,
nnunnmezaz nrsrnrcr.

~ ?}f»iiHE CHIEF zxscvrzvz orrxcza,

‘GE-‘FICE OF THE ZILA PMJCSLAYATH,

% opp. nooaanaasnn KENDRA,
DEVRNEGERE 5?? cos … IESPOIBEITS

f[BY 321: UDAY KUMAR SINGH, ADVOCATE FOR R1-2)

ruure L.UUK# uI- KAKNAIAKA HIGH_cQUR1 OF KARNMAKA HIGH Com?! 0%? KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COUR? OF KARNATAKA HIGH

2

1211.3 szemmnm aymzzmzm I5 $2333 EINEER
sgcrzrzm 446:}; {2} SE’ Ti-{E cmaymzras ACT, l_956,
Rm RHLE 6 a 2: 3? 2% C551:-iPm€IES§Cf:}i31§.’I’}v’~._R.?;II;£§i5S’:,
3.959, PRAYIBEG ‘1’H:’~¥£” THE RES§GNDEHf{?S.4″.§5E17i3IN

a’0m”:c’2:;:: Arm aafizsaaxgay BE aansaam 9.53 a ‘:–_:=ijE§:*:**:.::::»–_
3’0 may ‘:23 THE .?&EPI.I£E.I~E’.{‘ E. gm a3V_13.s’~;r-..,,_ ‘:*;.1§~.,\i=3:*..@i_~;*–.-_«
WITH zwrmss? issr rafts EEK £s_x~a;::.’ém 222:3:-:*””:::.:f;.,1;x:’sV_;.2r:;ve::1:a ‘

3:0 ‘TILL mm mm my I’z~m:V;IrJ”zi:3:-imxfr ‘ ;=’3;’.’-*3
mama: ARE ETC”, ‘

ms cawmv .wp*1:.w ]Is:a11%c:>rIfi c:QBe@flf€3A%a:>rzkj ma L %

EHKEJIFEY ‘I”.E-ES D;e’§.Y; Tim
FGLLC)WH¥(}:-

Mini Lilcnited was
dated 1;2.,2c:o5 in
mum and the
‘~I;:iqui§1e:;£@;xz¥’A’ m thia mm’ has men
aggamm ezftim mmyanyg by virt1.J.e csfthe

% % * act, 1955.,

mare mum’ trade a.mmg* with

V_ ‘ priest $0 ita liquidatian. 5.3 par the rmrds
VA by the mmpaxqi grad the ée1:& knfi cram’

“$25? the vm-cimectars esé’ me mmpany in Iéguidatimm thc

reapcndenm were irzdehrtm m the ctampany a sum sf

R8.9,.l95f- $3 $3, “§f’h§ fimciai Liiquifiater

H

-..,. .. _…V_,.._x…., … ………………….- ruvn t.-.uu|U~ ur mmmnm mcm comer as MRNHAM axca” cam “01: xARNA1*AkA’

3

Esuad mime: tn the: zmpandmts ‘:13 pay the

due by them In spite af am-vice sf

raspandexm did. not pay awunr ‘

Hmm, this apfilmficn ia filafi. . ‘_

3. The xmda ”

rcpr%img 1:-emoxxdesnt Na .’ {fir supply
of the snauam {an dated
28.3-.2002. z%=:»cfl’diI1fg,?;::–, iamtion
Vida ma aim
respametnts em
2a.4.2cmT% «of the mm the:

Pa.n§haya: aleng with the appzimrmn, The

cfiwrty it that the respandmm
dgeal§’k;m,mI¢£m.g,1%;-, as on 31.3.2663″

is mm by Sri z;aay1eum,1aarm mmei

‘ A an b&a1feft§’1e rmpondamta auhmim that the
% ” imgsrbmpany if: Equmtm hm mi mmuad the fifitafion.

rwfionxiimta beim ‘lihc atamtcw .ai:-:-…-H.

|'”u\:rr’ uvunl vr nnnmnu-mu mun 3…u,_uK! U!’ KAKNAIAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURI OF KARNATAKA I-IGH COURT OF KARNATAKP HIGH

4

The: said submhaisn mmxwt be aaogzpted,
iztmsamuxch as, mufi that have bwn

stafi unlms iataficn is matafladfi Records ”
that tlw rwpandanns ham ta.Bc3e3:1~£1::IejcA
and flaw’ stafi were traxneci’ .

mum by the Gama; Liqumgmr, me a.w3__ A me” %

mspondanns is cf
elzgjcatwians are met: in this
matter mcamirzed any
witnms than above, it E mm
“are liable as pay a sum
«asf &s.9,:gsk;« in uqmaazm as an
. ._

S; apvgfiixcanmy ‘5 has px’a:v’ad_ fzsr imgoaiirion af’

rm af 13% ga. 5-um 31.3mr:n:: ‘far:

1}3.2m5 mé at the ram 9:’ 5% pa. fiom. 2.3.2305 re

Same appem an be an the h2ghe’ 1′ side.

i.e.,

“pazzxthayam, be gtivaen wmmeminxx. , this

Gcrurt ‘m at’ that opinian that the mmrmt at 1:113 rate at’ 3%