Karnataka High Court
Dattatraya S/O Vishwas Naik vs Kavita W/O Ravindra Phadke on 21 November, 2014
Author: Mohan Shantanagoudar
Bench: Mohan .M. Shantanagoudar
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
ST
DATED THIS THE 21 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAN .M. SHANTANAGOUDAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 84589/2013 (GM-CPC)
C/W
WRIT PETITION Nos. 84590/2013, 84591/2013 &
84592/2013 (GM-CPC)
IN WP NO 84589 OF 2013
BETWEEN
DATTATRAYA S/O VISHWAS NAIK
AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS
R/O. PRAGATI COLONY, VIDYANAGAR,
HUBLI, DIST: DHARWAD.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. DINESH M KULKARNI, ADV.)
AND
1. KAVITA W/O RAVINDRA PHADKE
AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O. OPP. NEW TV TOWER
AIR ROAD, DHARWAD,
DIST: DHARWAD.
2. PRECISION TOOLING SYSTEM LTD
REG OFFICE NOW AT YANTRAPURA
-2-
HARIHAR, DIST: DAVANGERE,
R/BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.S.HARAVI, ADV. FOR R1,
SRI. GANGADHAR S.HOSAKERI, ADV. FOR R2.)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET-
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 31/10/2013 PASSED BY THE
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, DHARWAD IN
EX.P.NO.336/02 VIDE ANNEXURE-O AS NULL AND VOID.
IN WP NO 84590 OF 2013
BETWEEN
DATTATRAYA S/O VISHWAS NAIK
AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS
R/O. PRAGATI COLONY, VIDYANAGAR,
HUBLI, DIST: DHARWAD.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. DINESH M KULKARNI, ADV.)
AND
1. VANDANA W/O. UDAY DIXIT
AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O. GOKHALE CHAL,
SHIVAJI ROAD, DHARWAD
DIST: DHARWAD.
2. M/S PRECISION TOOLING SYSTEM LTD
REG OFFICE NOW AT YANTRAPURA,
HARIHAR, DIST: DAVANGERE,
R/BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.S.HARAVI, ADV. FOR R1,
-3-
SRI. GANGADHAR S.HOSAKERI, ADV. FOR R2)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DTD.31.10.2013 PASSED BY THE
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM DHARWAD IN
EX.P.NO.406/2002 VIDE ANNEXURE-N AS NULL AND
VOID.
IN WP NO 84591 OF 2013
BETWEEN
DATTATRAYA S/O VISHWAS NAIK
AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS
R/O. PRAGATI COLONY,
VIDYANAGAR, HUBLI
DIST: DHARWAD
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. DINESH M KULKARNI, ADV.)
AND
1. LAXMI W/O. CHANDRAKANT KAGALKAR
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O. RAMGOUDARONI, DARGA GALLI
DHARWAD, DIST: DHARWAD
2. M/S PRECISION TOOLING SYSTEM LTD
REG OFFICE NOW AT YANTRAPURA,
HARIHAR, DIST: DAVANGERE,
R/BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.S.HARAVI, ADV. FOR R1,
SRI. GANGADHAR S.HOSAKERI, ADV. FOR R2)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET
-4-
ASIDE THE ORDER DTD.31.10.2013 PASSED BY THE
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM DHARWAD IN
EX.P.NO.337/2002 VIDE ANNEXURE-O AS NULL AND
VOID.
IN WP NO 84592 OF 2013
BETWEEN
DATTATRAYA S/O VISHWAS NAIK
AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS
R/O. PRAGATI COLONY,
VIDYANAGAR, HUBLI
DIST: DHARWAD
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. DINESH M KULKARNI, ADV.)
AND
1. NARAYAN S GHANEHKAR
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: NIL
R/O. GANDHI CHOWK, DHARWAD
DIST: DHARWAD
2. M/S PRECISION TOOLING SYSTEM LTD,
REG OFFICE NOW AT YANTRAPURA,
HARIHAR, DIST: DAVANGERE,
R/BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.S.HARAVI, ADV. FOR R1,
SRI. GANGADHAR S.HOSAKERI, ADV. FOR R2)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DTD.31.10.2013 PASSED BY THE
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM DHARWAD IN
EX.P.NO.405/2002 VIDE ANNEXURE-N AS NULL AND
VOID.
-5-
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The order of the Court below in Execution Petition Nos.336/2002 and 337/2002, dated 31.10.2013 under which the application filed by the petitioner herein for recalling the warrant came to be rejected.
2. The records reveal that the second respondent herein is a Company registered under the Companies Act. The first respondent herein deposited certain sums of money in the Company with a view to get the interest thereon. Since the said amounts are not paid by the Company, the first respondent approached the Company law Board, Southern Region, Chennai in Company Application No.PTS.1-3/58A(9)/SRB/2002. The said applications came to be heard and decided on 28.3.2002 thereby the Company Law Board directed the Company to pay the amounts due. -6- Despite the same, the amounts were not paid. Treating the said order as a decree, execution petitions are filed by the decree holders (respondent No.1 in all these matters). Arrest warrant came to be issued against the petitioner herein on the ground that he is an Ex-Director of the Company. The petitioner was not made a party in any of the proceedings either before the Company Law Board or before the executing Court. Only after issuing arrest warrant, the petitioner came to be know about the proceedings and thereafter filed an application under Order XXI Rule 58(2) CPC for recalling the arrest warrant.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that he was working as Chief Executive Officer of the Company since 1.7.1999 and joined as Director of the Company w.e.f. 15.3.2001. It is his further case that he resigned from the Directorship of the Company on 30.3.2005. Thus, according to him, he was neither the Chief Executive Officer nor the Director of the -7- Company in question either at the time of transaction between the Company and the decreeholders nor he was working in such capacity at the time of issuance of arrest warrant.
The said submissions are controverted by the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the decreeholders by contending that the petitioner was the Director of the Company as on the date of the order passed by the Company Law Board.
4. Sri Dinesh Kulkarni, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner fairly admits that the petitioner was the Director of the Company as on the date of the order passed by the Company Law Board, i.e., on 28.3.2002. It is specifically directed by the Company Law Board that the Company, its Directors and concerned Officers shall ensure compliance of the order of the Company Law Board within the stipulated period, failing which the decreeholders were at liberty -8- to execute the order under Section 634A of the Companies Act.
Since the petitioner was a Director of the Company, he is bound to ensure compliance of the order passed by the Company Law Board. Since the same is not complied with, execution petitions are filed by the decreeholders.
5. It is no doubt true that the arrest warrant was issued without hearing the petitioner at the first instance. However, the petitioner himself voluntarily appeared and filed application for recalling the arrest warrant, based on which the impugned orders are passed by the Executing Court on 31.10.2013 after hearing the petitioner. In view of the same, it is not open for the petitioner to argue that he is not heard in the matter.
6. At this stage, Sri Gangadhar Hoskeri, learned advocate appearing for the Company submits that the -9- Company would be depositing the principal amount, i.e., the amount which is deposited by the decreeholders in the Company. According to him, the Company is closed and is not in existence and therefore he pleads for leniency in the matter. He further submits that he has brought six Demand Drafts in respect of these matters and submitted before this Court along with the memo. The memo and Demand Drafts are taken on record.
7. Since certain amounts are deposited by the Company as of now, I deem it proper to send back the matter to the trial Court to give opportunity to the Company as well as its Directors to pay the remaining amount. It is also open for the executing Court to give some more time to them but it should be within three months from today. Accordingly, the following order is made:-
(i) Impugned orders dated 31.10.2013 stand set aside. The trial Court is
- 10 -
directed to hear the petitioner on the point of issuance of arrest warrant once again and thereafter shall take decision in the matter on merits and as per law.
(ii) The Demand Drafts which are now submitted before the Court shall be sent to the executing Court by the Registry of this Office, forthwith in the sealed cover.
(iii) It is open for the decreeholders to accept the Demand Drafts subject to objections and subject to final adjudication.
Writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. Copy of this order to be sent to Additional Registrar of the High Court, Dharwad Bench for necessary action.
(Sd/-) JUDGE *ck/-