Karnataka High Court
Shri B S Puttaraju S/O. Shri Shivanna vs Matha Minerals Private Limtied on 27 February, 2009
Bench: Deepak Verma, Subhash B.Adi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 27% DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2009
PRESENT |
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DEEPAK vena a
AND. OO
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUBHAS 3H B. ADE i :
Company Appeal No.2/ 2005 .
BETWEEN: |
Shri B.S.Puttaraju,
Son of Shri Shivanna,
Aged abut 45 years, _
No. 13, 60 Feet Road,
Sangolli Rayanna Roail, Amvariyothi Nagar, a
Bangalore- 560 040. es oe
| nn: ...APPELLANT
{By M/ S'Grecvatsa Asscciates, Adv.)
AND:
1. Matha Minecals Private Lid.
A Company incorporated. under
The Companies Act, 1 of 1956,
~~ Having its Registered Uffice at
» No.1741, 17 Cross,
'MRCR Layout, _ .
Vileyanager,. oe
Bangalore- 'S66 1 940.
. Also at No. 13, 60 Feet Road,
. Sangolli, Rayanna Road,
~ Amarjyothinagar,
_Bangalore-560 040.
2. Shri C.R.Somashaker,
~ Son of Shir C.Ramu,
ao Aged bout 40 years,
No. 14, 1st Main, SVG Nagar,
Mudaipalaya,
Bangalore-560 072.
3. Shri B.S.Naveen,
Son of Shri V.Somanna,
Aged about 30 years,
No.967, 294 Main, Vijayanagar,
Bangalore-560 040. Be
. RESPONDENTS.
(By Sri.A.Murali, M&C Partner, Adv. for C/R1,- Sri Jayna Kothari & C.K. Nandakumer, :
Advs. for C/R2 ard RS) This Company Appeal is Aled under 'Section - OF of * the Companies Act, 1956, against the order dated 5:1 .2009, passed by the Company Law Board, Chennai, 1 Company Application No. 28 of 2008 in Company } Petition No. 62 i 2008. .
This appeal coming < on. for admission, this day, Deepak Verma J. delivered the following: . ;
y ; JUDGMENT M/s. Sreevatsa Associates for appellant. Sri A, Murali. for "respondent No. 1, Sri Udaya Holla, for respondents No. 2 and: 3.
_ 2. Appellant herein has been arrayed as respondent No. 1, . in the Company Petition filed before the Company Law Board (hereinetter referred to as 'the Board') by respondents No.2 and 3 herein, under Sections 397, 398, 402, 403 and 388C of the ms Companies Act, 1956, The Company Petition is still pending.
- During the pendency of the said Company Petition, the appellant : herein filed an application before the Board, under Regulation
-- 44 of the Company Law Board Regulation, 1991, praying for grant of injunction against the respondents on variety of grounds. The Board has dismissed the appellant's application for grant of injunction. Hence, this appeal. 3, After having heard the learned counsel for parties and after perusal of the records, we are of the opinion that, 20 "useful 7 ° purpose is going to be served by keep: Dg this. appeal pending in this Court, as admittedly it is 'only against an ioterim order = passed by the Board. The main. Company Petition filed by :
respondents No.2 and 3 herein. is still "pending disposal on merits. In the said Company | Petition, Ape Nant is yet to file his counter.
4. Learned counsel for appellant strenuously submitted before us that, | looking. to the findings recorded by the Tribunal, while deciding the appeliant's application, the same is likely to come heavily against kim, as and when the main Company Petition. comes up for hearing. it was also contended that, some of. the findings recorded were uncalled for, more so when the a 7 Board was only deciding the interlecutory application for grant | | 7 of injunction as prayed for by the appellant.
. 5.1m the light of the rival contentions as advanced before "us, we are of the opinion that, it is a fit case where appeal can _ "be. disposed of by direction to the Board to take up the main _ matter, at an early date and dispose of the Company Petition itself at an early date. However, it is clarified that, while doing so, the matter would be heard afresh, without being influenced by any of the findings recorded in the impugned order passed by the Board. In other words, we reiterate that, all. questions . projected by respective parties, would be considered Oe + merits accordance with law.
6. However, looking to the controversy involved, 'it is just and proper for the Board to take up the. iaatter as expeditiously as possible and eadevuor would be niade- ; by the Board to dispose it of within - a. 'Period of Six "months from the date of communication. of this onder. Neediess to 0 say that, parties would also co- operate in, this, eirection and would not seek undue adjournments. _--
With the aforesaid direction, this appeal stands finally disposed of, bat RO onder a as to costs.
Sd/-
Judge Sd/-
Judge *AP/-