Karnataka High Court
Sri Alagh Vishal Sushil vs The Official Liquidator Of on 1 February, 2023
Author: Krishna S Dixit
Bench: Krishna S Dixit
-1-
CA No. 353/2022
IN COP NO.214/2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
CA NO.353/2022
IN
COP NO.214/2012
BETWEEN:
SRI. ALAGH VISHAL SUSHIL,
S/O VISHAL,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
RA/T NO A 304, SAI CHANDRODAYA,
SECTOR 17, PLOT NO 56,
OPP BANK OF BARODA,
KOPAR KHAIRANE, NVI MUMBAI,
MAHARASTTRA 400 709.
...APPLICANT
(BY SRI. SHIVASHANKARA Y D.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by CHETAN B THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR OF
C
Location: HIGH M/S KINGFISHER AIRLINES LIMITED,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA (IN LIQUIDATION)
HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
12TH FLOOR, RAHEJA TOWERS,
MAHATAM GANDHI ROAD,
BENGALURU 560 001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.K.S.MAHADEVAN.,ADVOCATE FOR OL)
THIS APPLICATION IS FILED UNDER RULE 177 OF THE
COMPANIES (COURT) RULES, 1959, R/W SECTION 5 OF THE
LIMITATION ACT, PRAYING TO CONDONE THE DELAY OF 973
-2-
CA No. 353/2022
IN COP NO.214/2012
DAYS IN PREFERRING THE CLAIM FORM NO.67 AFFIDAVIT
BEFORE THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR AND DIRECT THE
OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR TO ADJUDICATE THE CLAIM MADE BY
THE APPLICANT; AND ETC.,
THIS APPLICATION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The subject matter of this Application is substantially similar to the one in C.A.No.367/2022 in Co.P.No.214/2012 between SANTOSH KUMAR vs. KINGFISHER AIRLINES LTD., disposed off on 11.01.2023 wherein at paragraph 2 it is observed as under:
"2. It is stated at the Bar that ordinarily, application for condoning delay are favorably considered by the Company Courts subject to all just exceptions into which the argued case of the applicant does not fit. More prejudice would be caused than otherwise, should delay be not condoned more particularly when the claimant happens to be the workman who is otherwise placed in a protective condition under Section 529 of the Companies Act, 1956 on pari passu basis."-3- CA No. 353/2022 IN COP NO.214/2012
2. Learned counsel for the Applicant submits and this Court agrees with that once relief is granted to a litigant, the same needs to be extended to other similarly circumstanced litigants in the absence of any repugnant factors warranting an otherwise decision. This is consistent with the doctrine of equality & parity of treatment.
3. The Applicant has offered a plausible explanation for the delay in submitting his claim petition to the Official Liquidator. If that delay is not condoned in the circumstances of the case, a great injustice would be caused to the applicant. Conversely, if delay is condoned, the same would not add to the merits of the claim and thus no prejudice would be caused to anyone. This apart, it is not that if the claim Petition was filed in time, it would have been disposed off. Learned counsel appearing for the Official Liquidator submits that till date, the adjudication of the claims of others has also not taken place.
-4-CA No. 353/2022 IN COP NO.214/2012
In view of the above, this Application succeeds. The delay of 973 days in filing the claim petition is condoned. The Official Liquidator is directed to consider the claim petition on merits and in accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE Bsv