High Court Karnataka High Court

The Archdiocese Of Bangalore vs M/S Samrat Ashoka Exports (P) Ltd … on 24 July, 2008

Karnataka High Court
The Archdiocese Of Bangalore vs M/S Samrat Ashoka Exports (P) Ltd … on 24 July, 2008
Author: Ram Mohan Reddy

-1-

IN THE men coum or KARHATAKA, Bf V

DATED THIS *1′:-m 246: 1:22;?

BEF’ORE2__ a %
THE HONBLE MR.JUs?rI£§§:3 ‘1*2[_Ci1r¥é’t;¥\IVV’V’f§;:fiI3lJ)Y

COMPANY APPLIGATICN Vmgsof
IN G0;P._ i\IOg€;6f’-1996 _

BETWEEN V

-.n———–

THE ARCH.’DIQ’€§E”Si3._OF’–.l:}A}’~E{3′;£;L(}RE£:
REP. BY i’I’S.. TETEELAR HEAD; 1-as GRACE THE
lVI€)S’I’.~E%E’-.’«._IL}R.B¥3§:RNARif) MORAS, ARCHBISHOP
0;? Bfi;NGALOR.E,.fI’HROU’GH HES POWER 0?
ATTORNEY HOLDER, ‘TRE*zr:£4’:3.s.JAYANATHAN
PARISH PAff’R_ICK’S CHURCH,
BRIGADE ROAD, B’LC)RE.–56O 025

.- » ‘ ‘~ ” ‘ APPLICANT

” ” ‘(By vAsANTI»:”i?’F’ERNANDEs, ADV. )

.’ _-..-…’..

I ” M] S SAMRAT ASHOKA EXPORTS (P) LTD
“{!VN’3 LIQUI DAT} ON)
” r REP. BY THE OFFICIAL LEQUIDATOR
V. _ HIGH COURT OF’ KARNATAKA
” BANGALORE-560 001

M/S EAST was? EXPORTERS

No.7, MILLER TANK BED AREA
(ow QUEEN’S ROAD)
BANGAL()RE–56O 052 J/Hd\

-2.

REP. BY ITS PARTNER
MFLKANTILAL JAIN _
REspoNDERfI*$

(By Sfi: DEEPAK FOR 01, )

THIS APPLICATION UNDER sECrION__%i46 (‘BI Tier.
THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 PRAYING T0 ‘I:2!RE(;’r_ =fI*I-m I

OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR To DELIVER UP TFiE’1}5iiYS[{3IALVV:ADE
FACTO POSSESSION OF THE sevrzoiw’FL0o5e_.P!eI:;MIsE.s

SITUATED IN BLOCK ‘5’ _ 0? ‘1″HE–._ NON»-.R’ESiDENTiAL”wI
BUILDING KNOWN AS ST. F’A1’RICK’Sv- COMPLEX. sI’.I’.tIATE{I. ‘

or»: BRIGADE ROAD, BANGAL{)R”E–25 APPLICANT,
IN THE INTEREST OF JUS’FICI_?;___A-I!{l3*..E_2Q{}I’l”:7._

THIS CA con/II:§w:{“iI;)1IsI”.I?c:sRV.(j’I*=a:m§;*~2s THIS DAY, THE
coum’ MADE THE I=’0LLowIIs;c;;:’ *

V. ed counsel for the applicant,

appficafiee: is ‘:by the owner of the immovable

__ which the Official Liquidator is in

of the order of liquidation ihavmg’

eyefiizhe assets of the company in liquidation and

K V’ V’ .. Seeks order of delivery of possession.

2. Indisputably, as between the appfieant and the
company in liquidation, there exists no lie or a contract

which could be enforced against the company in

17K

-3-

liquiclation. I say so because, admittedlyiiie.

in C.A.610/O2 put the company. V311 >7 A’

possession of the said if

so, the lis is betwwn the ‘in CAD
610/02 and hence, t.’~*1.§-‘: refiéf s*§:i§igj1;£;Afor petition

is impermissible.

Sd/-L
Judge