High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri K R Ranganath vs M/S Nandaki Business Solutions … on 6 August, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Sri K R Ranganath vs M/S Nandaki Business Solutions … on 6 August, 2008
Author: Ram Mohan Reddy


..—- ‘now… 1:. n\I-‘lIII’l’lI<-l"\l\7"I lIl\III 'I.a\I\ll'\l 'LIT I\l"|I\I'fP"\II-\I'\I'\ l"1i\.7l"!

'Il-v2"'

HGWBLE COURT MAY BE PLEASEE TO WIND UP THE
CQMPAM' HIS. NARQAKI SUSINESS 5OLU'¥}€3I'4$ PVT,

£35., T?-{E R%i°€3NDEN}' IN THE PETITION UP«|DE§{"Tl*!.E'=_
PROVE?-IO§i$ OF semen -sasge) AND (r)

COMPANIES ACT, 1956.

Tfixis tzampany petitian is caming.ar;’fcr’

We day, the Court made em fcifiowingz J’ i’ ;

The petitioner aiigging a
Campanyg. imzarpcramd 5′:-£_~._ 1956 (For
simrt ‘Act? hsvi:§§’« state of
Kala-namfim the cause tide,
having belonging to the
psh”tia::s’:ef,.,_’ kH;2A$ i’£1;.’i’:-fa’t:§%r’i§§:”vd=sp¢sit, has prewnizad this

petitiean fen; ian _ urf§1éir:§;z§ we r-zaspondent UIS 433

~9*I* Wiifiw

. is opposed by fiiing statement of

.:;::tjenc’§.im’.:s’—-§i£:i;$”‘¢i 12.232903 intar aiia, contendin that the
*7ggfitsmgrzaavinq depositea as.15,o:3o,*– on 3.73.1990 with
_ 4’.’_’§:3§é«-thasfiondent which would carry ‘§r:herest at 14% PA. for
kj % fm% paeficnd fmm 3.11999 to 2.7.1992, naverflieiess

xRs,;2§,a§fi-ii» was repaid on dffifarent dates commencing

from 5.8. 1395 he 18.3.£}.19%, flwmugh cheques, as

1:-‘°\

-nun: u ‘hnifinllil ‘ll

*:grm}untV i¢§;vpA: Envifierm deg:-wit me {ha pefikianer 2.2

……’…………. r..w. gag”. ur mmmnm men COURT OF KARNATAKA Hm?-!~l COURT or KARNATAKA HIGH cousrr o:= KARNATAKA HlGH<

_..-C3'-K

fimhssé in Annerxure 'A', to tha smtsmerzt of azbjectiqgs.

The getifianer flied a mjainder dated 1.4.2608 stafing*1:hab t'–.v_'
flue tam? fiepasits cf Rs.98,€3fiG/— was nut only
but _. am by members of his fami§,r,_fmm

zwwraéent eifecmi pasymairzst of

principal amaurxt war an _periAc':n:§_;.:;.st{;i Mé:§af"2QGfi.
Accarding be: the petitiongr, fi:§…I;$AtaE –:il.1.;$_ 'i:s this
pafitienar arsé his family réiezifijzbézt-sgijsg

3. Admiahegdfi; ” “;jL_a§i§Eo:’raa:9f.’v_v refund of
Rs.16,m3;–<<.yyifh: i'nii~B;es'i;-».i§r!§§é!'i W .»f5a;:-ousim by him with
five rssmmduani céaims atnomts depnsibad

by mumbem""af-iii; are not co-petitioners. The

paints out to the fact that the

Q1.

as returned,

wésfia is mat disputed in the rejainder. If that

sa, ‘Et.. i*§n’n$t be saw that were is éetaermined, and
« é§ef¥nE[£a.AAdé§t which is this and payame by we raspandant

fiartifionar.

“.1… ..–..n..n . nu: – uwunl ur nnnu-uuunnn nlu-H l..UUI(l U!’ KARNATAKA HIGH

W4 A

4. Ia’: the manic, petilzim is without merit and_..___§s

azcardingiy rejected.

394$.