Karnataka High Court
Sri Sudershan Kumar Manchanda vs S M Kannappa Automobiles (P) Ltd on 17 February, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:7030
WP No. 22216 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 22216 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. SUDERSHAN KUMAR MANCHANDA
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS
S/O LATE SRI MUNSHILAL MANCHANDA
RESIDING AT NO.40, BASAPPA ROAD
SHANTHINGAR, BENGALURU-560027
2. SRI. NIKHIL MANCHANDA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
S/O SRI SUDERSHAN MANCHANDA
RESIDING AT NO.3908 NE, 100TH STREET,
SEATTLE, WA 98125
BOTH REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY
SMT. MEENU MANCHANDA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
W/O SRI. SUDERSHAN MANCHANDA
RESIDING AT NO.40, BASAPPA ROAD,
SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU-560027.
Digitally signed
by ...PETITIONERS
MARKONAHALLI
RAMU PRIYA (BY SRI. VIVEKANANDA S., ADVOCATE)
Location: HIGH
COURT AND:
KARNATAKA
1. M/S S.M. KANNAPPA AUTOMOBILES (P) LTD
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
COMPANIES ACT, 1956
HAVING OFFICE AT NO.2
NEW MENTAL HOSPITAL ROAD,
BENGALURU-560027
REP. BY MANAGING DIRECTOR
2. UMA MANCHANDA
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:7030
WP No. 22216 of 2024
W/O LATE ASHOK KUMAR MANCHANDA
RESIDING AT NO.71/1-6/1,
CUNNINGHAM ROAD,
OPP. STATE BANK OF MYSORE
BANGALORE-560001.
3. PREETHI CHOWRIAPPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
D/O LATE SRI ASHOK MANCHANDA
RESIDING AT G-2, SILVER OAK APARTMENTS,
KENSINGTON ROAD CROSS,
HALSURU, BENGALURU-560008
4. PRIYA MANCHANDA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
D/O LATE SRI ASHOK MANCHANDA
RESIDING AT NO.72/1-6/1
CUNNINGHAM ROAD
OPP. STATE BANK OF MYSORE
BANGALORE-560001.
5. GAURAV MANCHANDA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
S/O LATE SRI ASHOK MANCHANDA
RESIDING AT NO 72/1-6/1
CUNNINGHAM ROAD
OPP. STATE BANK OF MYSORE
BANGALORE-560001.
6. NAND RANI MANCHANDA
AGED ABOUT MAJOR
W/O LATE MUNSHILAL MANCHANDA
RESIDING AT NO.40,
BASAPPA ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR,
BENGALURU-560027.
7. INDU BALA BATRA
AGED ABOUT MAJOR
D/O LATE MUNSHILAL MANCHANDA
RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.502
19TH MAIN, 36TH CROSS, 4TH E BLOCK,
JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560041.
8. PRAKASH ROAD LINES LIMITED
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:7030
WP No. 22216 of 2024
COMPANIES ACT, 1956
HAVING OFFICE AT PRAKASH HOUSE, 65/31
3RD CROSS, KALASIPALAYAM NEW EXTENSION
BANGALORE-560002
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR
9. PRAKASH LEASING LIMITED
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
COMPANIES ACT, 1956
HAVING OFFICE AT NO.50,
1ST MAIN ROAD, VASANTHANAGAR
BANGALORE-560052
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR
10. BHARATH BHUSHAN NARANG
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
S/O LATE OMPRAKASH NARANG
RESIDING AT NO.9, NORTH PARK ROAD,
KUMARA PARK EAST, BANGALORE-560001.
11. VAIBHAV NARANG
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
S/O BHARAT BHUSHAN NARANG
RESIDING AT NO.9, NORTH PARK ROAD,
KUMARA PARK EAST, BANGALORE-560001.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH AND SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 06.07.2024 IN O.S.NO.5053/1990
PASSED BY THE XV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU (CCH-3) PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
ORAL ORDER
The defendant Nos.1 and 4 in O.S.No.5053/1990 pending on the file of the XV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (henceforth referred to as 'Trial Court') have filed -4- NC: 2025:KHC:7030 WP No. 22216 of 2024 this writ petition challenging an order dated 06.07.2024 by which, their application (I.A.No.3/2023) filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (henceforth referred to as 'CPC') to recall DW.6 for cross-examination, was dismissed with cost of Rs.1,000/-.
2. The parties shall henceforth be referred to as they were arrayed before the Trial Court. The petitioners herein were the defendant Nos.1 and 4, while respondent No.1 was the defendant No.6. Respondent Nos.2 to 5 were the legal representatives of the plaintiff and respondent Nos.6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 were the defendant Nos.2, 3, 5, 7, 8 and 9 respectively before the Trial Court.
3. A suit in O.S.No.5053/1990 was filed for partition and separate possession of the plaintiff's share in the suit schedule properties. The suit was contested by the defendant Nos.1, 4 and 6.
4. During the trial of the suit, defendant Nos.8 and 9 filed an application to be impleaded in the suit on the ground that the defendant Nos.1 and 4 had sold 200 equity shares, which the family held in the defendant No.6 - company. The -5- NC: 2025:KHC:7030 WP No. 22216 of 2024 said application was allowed and defendant Nos.8 and 9 were permitted to come on record, following which, the following additional issues were framed:-
Additional issues:
1) Whether plaintiff proves that the doctrine of lis-
pendency, applies to the transfer of shares in favour of defendants No.8 and 9, in respect of shares held by D1 and D4 in the 6th defendant company?
2) Whether defendants No.8 and 9 proves that they are the bonafide purchasers of shares in the 6th defendant company from defendants No.1 and 4 and those transfers are valid and binding on parties?
3) Whether defendants No.8 and 9 proves that suit is barred by limitation?
5. Prior to defendant Nos.8 and 9 being brought on record, defendant No.8 was examined as DW.5, who had attested the Will executed by the predecessor of the defendant No.1. After the defendant Nos.8 and 9 were impleaded, defendant No.8 was examined on the additional issues and was also cross - examined extensively. Long thereafter, the -6- NC: 2025:KHC:7030 WP No. 22216 of 2024 defendant Nos.1 and 4 filed an application (I.A.No.3/2023) under Section 151 of CPC to recall DW.6 for further cross- examination in order to elicit information whether 200 shares in the defendant No.6 - Company were lawfully transferred to the defendant Nos.8 and 9.
6. The said application was contested by the defendant No.6, who claimed that when DW.6 was examined earlier, he was then aged 68 years, while the instant application was filed after nearly 20 years. Therefore, defendant No.6 contended that the application was designed to protract the proceedings and would not serve any useful purpose.
7. The Trial Court after considering the contentions in the application as well as the objections filed thereto, rejected the application in terms of the impugned order on the ground that the defendant Nos.1 and 4 had already filed Company Petition No.68/2012 before the National Company Law Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench and challenged the transfer of 200 shares in favour of defendant No.8. It also held that an issue was framed as to whether the defendant Nos.8 and 9 prove that they were -7- NC: 2025:KHC:7030 WP No. 22216 of 2024 the bonafide purchasers of the shares in the defendant No.6 - company from the defendant Nos.1 and 4. It therefore, held that it is for the defendant Nos.8 and 9 to establish that the transactions were lawful and therefore, there was no need to recall DW.6 for further cross-examination as DW.6 did not state anything against the interest of defendant Nos.1 and 4.
8. Being aggrieved by the said order, the defendant Nos.1 and 4 are before this Court in this petition.
9. The learned counsel for defendant Nos.1 and 4 submitted that the family owned 200 shares in defendant No.6
- Company and that was also liable to be partitioned. He contends that defendant Nos.1 and 4 did not execute any Share Transfer Forms authorizing the defendant No.6 - Company to transfer the shares in favour of defendant Nos.8 and 9. He therefore, contends that it is for defendant Nos.1 and 4 to establish that there was no lawful transfer of shares and the only person, who is competent to speak about this, was DW.6, who was examined before the Court. He therefore, contends that the evidence of DW.6 is necessary.
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:7030 WP No. 22216 of 2024
10. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for defendant Nos.1 and 4.
11. A perusal of the plaint, written statement filed in the suit goes to show that the suit was also in respect of 200 shares that the family held in defendant No.6 - Company. The defendant Nos.8 and 9 were impleaded in view of their claim that they had purchased 200 shares from defendant Nos.1 and 4 and that the same were not available for partition. Defendant Nos.8 and 9 were permitted to come on record and stake their claim to 200 shares mentioned above. The Trial Court framed an issue as to whether the defendant Nos.8 and 9 had lawfully purchased the shares from the defendant Nos.1 and 4 and whether they were bonafide purchasers of the said shares. Hence, burden was upon the defendant Nos.8 and 9 to establish the said fact. Therefore, the Trial Court considered the same in the right perspective and held that there was no need to recall DW.6 for cross-examination as the burden is upon the defendant Nos.8 and 9 to establish that the transaction was lawful and that they were the bonafide purchasers. This apart, the Trial Court has rightly noticed that DW.6 was then aged 68 years when he was cross-examined -9- NC: 2025:KHC:7030 WP No. 22216 of 2024 before the Court and presently is aged about 89 years. Therefore, it would not be wise to recall DW.6 for cross- examination so as to elicit the question, whether there was any proper documentation authorizing the transfer of 200 shares in favour of defendant Nos.8 and 9. In addition, the defendant No.1 and 4 are already before the National Company Law Tribunal questioning the transfer of shares in favour of defendant No.8. In that view of the matter, no interference is warranted in the impugned order.
12. Hence, this petition is dismissed.
13. Since the suit is filed in the year 1990, the Trial Court is requested to dispose off the suit as early as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The Trial Court is requested to take up the suit on day to day basis.
Sd/-
(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE PMR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47