Karnataka High Court
M/S Ravishankar Fertilizers vs M/S Agro Inputs Limited (In ... on 7 March, 2008
Bench: Deepak Verma, Anand Byrareddy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
DATED THIS THE 1"" DAY OF A T ,
-nxvx 1r-\1\'rr\3
r1<.1:.g_D1~i__'1':
THE HON'BLE MR. .IUsfr1ci: f I
THE HON'BLE MR;..JUS'1'l'CE:'ANAND BYRAREDDY
.z:.. ______.' 'u.
0.3 I\" 1%!-g'22:VQ}5"2$iV4
M/s. Ravishankaf-Eurliliicrs "
Fertiiizers Desflcr .,_'
No. 47; 5"*c:m~ss T;
Ravitldimlaigar,' Sllimcsgg' -.,,_ V' " 3
Shimoga fiistrici -_ A '
Rcpresgnled by its "
= _ P1%;5'3:ri§:tVor.vSri. Ravfilmnkar % APPELLANT
Advocate for Appellant)
ii HR}-{presented by
' . ' V .. _V . _-- A' = Official Liquidator
% V' _ __?Attached to the Hon'hle
High Cururi oi'Karr:ai.aka
4"' Floor, 'D' Wing
Kendriya Sadana
<51
Kuramangala _ 0. 5 _
Bangalore-56' O34 'Fu:.SP__fmu '
(Shri.Deepak, Advocate)
This O.S.A. is filed under
1961 against the order dated-.._'l1.6§2004 pass'ec1]ig_1 Cpmpany
Appiicafififi Ne. 1917:2993 Cfv.*..iC;V.A.1*~ln.V9'm"M
This appeal eon':'ing on; 0113:" aidxriiesiun this day, DTSEFAK
J med naginiimwg-;;a;. _
ill' I.\J-S.I\.!-'l' I
Shri i._. ;"rak£i:&' 16ri'0iI'1e"appei:izihi.
2. KVv_Sh;i.iI5eepal_g;'Eur'«aiie-'Q11ieial Liquidator.
: 'V ' . i . y _ ' -
4.. This appr-ea} under Seetwn 4 9!. -'...e .--.ern9.La..a Hag" C«....r|.
" ;'Ae.l, 3.0vSl:,..0:}i"a.~s__been pleferred by the appeiianl agitinsl the prder
passed by the learned Comxiany Judge in
II
A liealion No.19}?/2003 u/w C'.i¢X.No.22/'Z004,
II'
V.wfi"ereby the appeiianfis appiicaiion with a prayer fur reeamng "E
the order dated 27.7.2000 passed by {he learned Company J itdge
has been rejected.
'\./
5. Initially, this Cempany Appeal came up
the Division Bench on os.o7.2005.a it was at-..tt;.attu;e at
appeal was barred by 15 days.
application for eondonaiiefi iilett. an
account 01' certain diserepaneiesltiavifyg nelieet-1;" by the bench
in the two allidavits, the beI_1e!.tVc§ame,to-'.ithe.'.~eunelusion that the
eels-V has net and atleast te Lhe
satis£31etiofi--.pl'i:th;t;V bench 'fiearihg appeai. Censequentiy, not
only the apptietttéetl'w.l'er«V.e(:ndanati0n of delay? even the appeal
came to be4_dismissed.p' » fl
he"'appeltlVaiitW'feeling aggrieired by the order, filed
neame for hearing before the Supreme Court en 16.11.2007.
Supreme Court was pleased to set aside the cjrder passed by
the Divisiurl Befieh 'Cu u8.
,. ._ "1' nnn: ......1 ...,... ..
I ..£aUUJ uuu wan 1.!
delay. The matter has then been remitted to this Ceart for hearing
a 3 I - . '. ~. , '~
nest is haw, with eensent el part:e.=:.:_-we hex-re n-eard
'3. Aeeuding 1:. the uppelfint aft firrnh
suffered tosses in thepartnershi1iV._:'bu3iness, 'it-hzithi closed its
business activities from the earlier address available with the
Offieial Liquidate.£1j:Vj'sL1nd:;l__1ad, Bveettvupatna in Davanagere
District. we--:a:.:t:ee*:esue,d b'_~',r-the. Gwmelal Laquzdater 9:: th-
e
11
previous address thus ieoutd not be
served $131514' the with the postal endorsement
'nugeiaimedt. "*I.t§V_isVevi(ient them the said ayerments that appellant
. was neitheruware ui'issuar1ee ofnutiee nor had any ;km:nwle(ig" 01'
~isS11anee 0.6-.E_' eetice to it, as a consequence thereof, it was
" erder eame In he ns-es-*1' auaane-:t
prueeeitedhvetgparte on 27.7.2000. On the same date an adverse
t. The reelwrt
I-I-I I-aw tn-5 up-.. =
hreveai anywhere that either the appeiiant or any of its partners had
any knowledge of the hearing tu be taken bet'ur_'e the learned
Cempany Judge on 27.7.2000. .In absence of notice, obviously,
Wd>
(..--
(II
the appellant could not have put up an
when exparte order eame to passed';"' . A
3. In the light of the "i'aeI'.na'1 lilnentioneld
hereinabove, we have e~o.ur:*m_ind llxattlie order dated
27.7.2000, whieh by :the appellant
9. __ the ground of principles of natural justice. lI'r.,_aCVoei't_ party should be given adequate arrdfisuifieieni omiorturnity to put up its the party alter ' Ldtse, negligent or callous in contesting -the matter, no lorderaielnould be passed, unless it is heard. In an arena of.
- 1 ' - Cgugl 9; law la nnrt ..-.: .0: 1 ml: he. elven. _}n l nnnnrlnnitv to V' ~ Jtovv wanna - u up ---~---- -- --.----- __.l_I__.___.___.' . veoriiest the matter on merits rather than such lopsided manner. l ___lThe records of this case do not show that the appellant had been either oallous or negligent or had evaded service-with male fide ifierxtioa to appear kreiiire th" l"".r:'ea_l Ce:n'=":'sy '"""' = That Li quash 277.2000, which we hereby do. Ex gpnsequetlii;-. 'idaiigr iv, be remitted to the learned Compémy 0.
opportunity of hearing to théfipgzgcllafii gs» Liquiuakm, '." 61': 13:6 "'3'-s'u4::£ .-§..:'§ acucrdance with law. With the albresétid dir*3cf1io_r§s,. appeal stands finally disposed of.