Karnataka High Court
Smt S Kunjithamala W/O Late Sri ... vs Hvac Systems Pvt Limited on 3 February, 2010
Bench: D.V.Shylendra Kumar, N.Ananda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BAN
PRESENT
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY. 2011:
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE D V
AND
THE HON'BLE
COMPA No. 1 . V
Misc. CD1. 1975, 1.9??,;g9?9".& T 98:0"" {$2010
;:c:oMPA No.1 032010»
IN COMPA No.i 6:' ., "
Between: 'A Z
1 SMT s KuNJ1't'HAMALA
w/o LATE; .sR1.,RAMA1aqoo;§:'1'H1
AGED ABOU"'1'_43' YEARS
"""
V D/0 1.A1i1«; RAMAMURTHY
AGED "ABO,UT_ 17 YEARS
V3 'MAs'rER'. *Pi?;AsHAN':H
= S/'Q I;A_T1'3 RAMAMUR'I'HY
AGED ABOU'I' 15 YEARS
Ar>.PEI.i;AN'1S 2 8: 3 ARE MINORS
. R1_§}P';'_«BY NATURAL GUARDIAN W MOTHER
.Ap'9i::I,:ANT' NO. I
-éid-'PE3I.§.AN7[S 1 TO 3 ARE C/O
HVAC SYSTEMS PVT. LTD,
E\30.145. 2?") MAIN. 15*' B CROSS
COMPANIES ._AC.T' AGA}\}Bf1' A TI-I"E.--'._ ER DATED
IN CA No.35 OF 2.009--1N'C1%.NO~Aa~«O*F 2005 AND
2~a> PHASE. DOMLUR
BANGALORE m 560 071 ABBI«:L1AN"rS
{BY SR1. G v RAO. A£)V.. FOR 2 V
SR} N KIRAN. ABv..1
HVAC SYSTEMS PVT. LIMITED -
NO. I45, 2°51-3 MAJN, 13"' B CROSS '
2"'-3 PHASE, DOMLUR
BANGALORE ~ 560 071
L VIVEKANANDA
S/O RAMAKRISHNAPPA .
No.73, 18'!" CROSS. 3"",-MAIN
DEFENCE COLONY. A '
INDIRANAGAR ~ '-- .
BANGALORE» 560 O08 '- _ f '
ING WSYA BANK ._
CORPORATE j._OEE1AC.E .. 1
M G ROAO,'
BANGALORl§) 4,550 001 '
RESPONDENTS
COMBA N'O.'~15§OE 2;:()iO--.iS«f+'iL«ED UNDER SECTION IOF OF THE
30.11.2009 PASSED
IN MISC. CVL. 1975, .1977, I979 82. 1980 OF 2010.-
.LtW_..eeh:S'AA
1.7. '
;SM<r S' UNJrfH.AMA1.A
I w:/ O"1.;ATE SRf1-BAMAMOOWHI
'AGED ABO_[fF313 YEARS
RA"PRE--ETHi
_ D/O 1;Aj'}: RAIViAMURT}~IY
* V? AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS
S ._MA3'TER. R PRASHANTH
S/ O LATE RAMAMURTHY
EV ...-AGED ABC)U"f' 15 YEARS
APPE',LLAN'IS 2 81 3 ARE IVIII\3ORS
REP. BY NATURAL GUARDIAN ~ MO'FI*--IEI'{
APPEI..I..AI\I'I' NO. I
APP£~ZLI,,AN'I'S 1 TO 3 ARE
R/A'I'NO.146, 18!' CROSS. 2w MA11\1
DOIVILUR V . _
BANGALORE A 560 071 AP1é1;1c;AN'1Si'1. '
[BY SR1. G V RAO1 A1)~'*--./'.. 1?'_OE;'
SR1 N KIRAN. ADv.;.1
HVAC SYSTEMS PVT. LIMITED " _ I
REGISTERED OFFICE AT BAN&GAL'O_R.E '
KARNATAKA. WITH REC.}_N" «1\10.,: 6023 'I "<1 _
D'i'D.O4.08.I994
NO.145, 2M> MAIN, ISTB CRO_SS_ jV
2ND PHASE. DOMLUR -
BANGALORE:~»':3E'sO1'O71¢:_ 1;
REP. BY M1)' ~ 3
;__4
2 L V1vEKANAN13A:'_ . A
S /0 R;"x§v1A_!iRI.SHNAI'--PA « _
No.-7:5. 1s'1'c11::_.SS.'3m) MAIN . '
DEZFENCE COLONY, A '
11\1D1RAMAGAR ' _ ' .
13ANGA1,o1:;E»; 560 00.8 = _
Ex -- _D1REC'"1'0R "
----------
" cO'RPORA'1'E«QEF1cE ' VM'GV1~"<o_AD;=.. * ' 13.ANGA.1;QRE 9.5.80 001 RESPONDEN'IS MISC. <:v1.'.A' 1975 OF 2010 1S FILED UNDER SECTION 151 OF CFC TO '1i>1REC"1" THE PRESENT AUDITOR MR. C R MURALYS _ ./;\..PPQIN'I'MEJNV'I' ZAS Ci-IARTERED ACCOUN'I'AN'I' BY THE COMPANY "i;.AW3 BO_ARD"' FOR VERIFICATION PROCESS 1S WITHDRAWN 4 "F4C3F{I'I~I\VI'I'"H. MISC. CVL. 1977 OF 2010 IS FILED IINIDER SEC'FION 151 OF ("LI-'{?,__'I7O DIRECT THE COIVIPANY LAW BOARD T0 APPOINT AN IN"DEPENDEI\IT AUDITOR FROM BANGALORE FROM A PANEL OF 'PJIAMELS TO BE SUGGES'I'E3D BY T}-IE5 I{AR.NATAKA ASSOCIATIOA' OF I': _ A ' 1.(','.I'IAR'I'£CR{£I) AC (_.'.OI,II\?'I'AN'I'S. charge of the management had acted to the detriment of the other person etc. ..
4. The application itself was made in company petition No.41 of 2005 which is V 397 and 398 of the Act by the person Managing Director figuring as petitioner two minor children figuring directed against the company of the Managing Director with the 2 respondent and the second resiporrdenVt"ito petition, being one L Vivekananda the appellants ~ petitioners, is the only lortchervv of the company. but there being as.' extent. of shareholding by this r'espondent.,VA_and.e:fi;trther the third respondent to the petition v beii1g'--f:li'e~ 'finaiic-iejr of the company. it is"he-cause the Board rejected the prayer of this 4'*~'.v.xn--at'uxrc changing the auditor who was required to go into 7Vht.he _aspec:t:s mentioned above. against whom the appellants W T7-._lpetitioners made themselves bold to allege professional 10 misconduct of the chartered accountant is a matter it): the institute of Chartered Accountants which is the body. If the appellants have not been advised in our understanding we find that has been taken for a ride and sundry in gprotrac-ting this.~l..itigatioi;1 'ford; so long. Be that as it may, thisllvislnot a warranting interference with the order: passed impugned in this appeal under section 1 V is ---
12. Accordingly, i..a;Im'7e.a:l iissed.
13. With '"t-hernain appeal itself, all the applicationslfiled in do not survive for considerationtipand arelherelby dismissed. Sd/-* EEDQE mgr;
i agkss