Karnataka High Court
Canara Bank vs The Official Liquidator Of M/S Krithika ... on 10 October, 2013
Author: Aravind Kumar
Bench: Aravind Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
R.P. NO.600/2013
BETWEEN:
Canara Bank,
Madiwala Branch,
#20/01, Hosur Main Road,
Madiwala, Bangalore-68
Represented by its
Authorized signatory. ...Petitioner
(By Sri.Aswathappa D, Advocate)
AND:
1. The Official Liquidator of
M/s Krithika Rubber Industries
Pvt. Ltd., (In liquidation)
Attached to High Court of Karnataka
'F' Wing, 4th Floor Kendriya Sadan
Koramangala,
Bangalore-560 034.
2. Sri. T.Devaraju
S/o M. Tukaram Rao,
Aged about 49 years
No. 57, 16th cross,
10th Main, Wilson Garden
Bangalore-30. ... Respondents
2
This Review Petition is filed under Section 114
R/w Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC & R/w Rules 6 & 9 of the
Companies (Court) Rules 1959 praying to review the
Order dated 13.06.2013 passed in C.A No.190/2008 in
Co.P.No.167/1999 on the file of the Hon'ble High Court
of Karnataka, Bangalore.
This Review Petition coming on for Admission this
day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
Heard Sri Aswathappa, learned Advocate appearing for review petitioner.
2 Review petitioner who was first respondent in C.A.No.190/2008 is seeking review of the order passed by this Court on 13.06.2013 whereunder company application filed by Official Liquidator came to be allowed and auction of the property bearing No. 67/G in Sy.No.205 measuring about 4026 sq.ft situated at Bommasandra village, Athibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore Rural District conducted by Recovery Officer came to be set aside with a direction to respondents therein to handover possession of the property to 3 Official Liquidator attached to the Company Court within an outer limit of four weeks from the said date.
3 It is the contention of Sri Aswathappa, learned Advocate appearing for review petitioner that Apex Court in the case of BANK OF MAHARASHTRA vs PANDURANG KESHAV GORWARDKAR AND OTHERS reported in ((2013)7 SCC 754) has held that question of re-opening the auction which has been conducted or sale conducted by the DRT cannot be reopened on the ground that subsequently company Court has passed an order of winding up against company in question. He would hasten to fairly submit that this judgment was not brought to the notice of this Court at the time when application C.A 190/2008 came to be allowed on 13.06.2013.
4. This Court having examined the relevant statutory provisions of the Company Court as well as provision of DRT Act and judgments cited at the bar by 4 the learned Advocates had disposed of the application C.A.190/2008. There is no error apparent on the face of record which calls for review in exercise of powers conferred under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. Hence, I do not find any merit in the review petition and it stands rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE *sp