High Court Karnataka High Court

State Bank Of Mysore vs M/S Surgical And Pharmaceuticals … on 14 August, 2008

Karnataka High Court
State Bank Of Mysore vs M/S Surgical And Pharmaceuticals … on 14 August, 2008
Author: Ram Mohan Reddy
1

IN THE HIGH COURT 0}? KARNATAKA,  

BATE!) THIS THE 14TH DAY OF A{}G1JSTVv2{A)C$_ "     

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE v.MoHJA_:~.I%':{ED:j?% k  _

COMPANY APPLICATi{3};fN().145Q Of%' 2%u5o79

 Q    
COMPANY 13,E«.'<1'_1_'1_j0rs1 NC), A35. OF 1978

BETW BEN:

SFATE BANK 'QF'~mfs0R~E  ._ 
MANDIPE'I',._.DAW\NAGER'E_'.'3I~?1§NC§gH
KARNATAKA4~572'i)_.{)_1 'R/B ITS'-MANAGER '

SR1. FiAMAK1'xN_TH '.;AréNt;_s/Q --SOMANATH

A/A 51 YEARS, 'SENiOR"'~!yiixNAGER, SBM

MANDIPEIT', 9A'JAr¢AGE~R_E~E3RANcH

KARNATAKA672' 001. "   APPLICANT

(B,:,«{sLmt: S s1i3vHf;;§;4a;, ADV.)

 M'}.s«s'U§G1c2§L"'AND PHARMACEUTICALS co LTD

(IN, LIQKIID)-~,. '
am FLOOR, D as F WING

 "KEN[}RI.YA SADAN", KORAMAGNALA

E?ANGALORE~56G 634

A 5]" R/B~ .£Z)FFICIAL LIQUIDATOR
,A'r':*zxc:»iED TO THE HONBLE HIGH COURT 0;?

EARNATAKA.  RESPONDENT

‘ (By Sri: DEEPAK FOR QL)

THIS APPLICATKJN HAS FILED UNBER SECTION 5129
OF’ THE COMPANIES ACT, UNDER RULE 9 OF THE

M

COMPANIES(C€I)UR’I’} RULES, 1959 R/W sEC:’iéN” 3.1%
THE «:31:-(2, PRAYING THAT TO DIRECT my; vC}FP’iC§AL
LIQUIBATOR TO PAY A SUM OEWRS. 32;54.,9?2′,u. WITH”

FUTURE INTEREST ‘FILL THE DATE} 0? «PAYMENT T’O~’THi3

APPLICANT BANK IN THE INTEREST_£3F*–..JL;s*r1CE%_M_A%;§;

EQUITY.

THIS APPLICATION CrjMING ON -1¥§(}}?° §f§I€1§ERS,’V’

THIS DAY THE COURT MADE”T:HE_ FoLLQw1N<3:

This a1j2;33i:f;zg1tio3§.i_ of Mysore for

a directiflri fihelfj: Liquidator to pay

fliiéfest on me premise that

the has cirder dated 13–O6~2001 of the

De13:t..LARt'3ué0$}§ry;' 'T1;ii.)una1 in O.A.No.984/1997

" £3:)'f':se€1i1e:i'E.A_ upon the preliminary d€)CI'€€ passed in

against the Company in liquidatiori. it

is f2.1rti:e:'~,§:éted that the Official Liquidator has received

RsL._.95,'GO.,00O/– as sale consideratian, in the auction of

A' *t;h*c:–A"«pr<)perties belonging to the Company on 22-02-

3

2. In the reply to the appiicatiozi, __ _

.v:~
Liquidator states that the claim 5:. _t;’£ia._ _gi:’zpp1ica;Qt__ –”

secured creditar was adjudicatedii T ‘a(3§I;.it-‘;f:£i_

Rs.31,55,374/- including i’1?_;1tz:;’est up}toV29}{3i3j-;2,QQ€§ m:[ *

that the Ofiicial Liqz1idat_<_%§"'-.. ihag récérfijmgfided for
declaration of the dmndb». %

3. In the 1ig111~–. o;f ;I.€pV1;\,’%’ v..”(‘)’.f the Oflicial

Liquidator,_.1§1ot1§§ii1._g ftuflngr S.L1IfLriVe$;’fEJr consideration in

this app1i<3ai:i_0n_ -'disposed of.

Sd/-

Judge