Karnataka High Court
Sri R Dilip Kumar S/O S. Ramu vs The Karnataka State Finance ... on 31 July, 2008
Author: Ajit J Gunjal
Bench: Ajit J Gunjal
1
IN THE HIGH comm' or KARNATAKA
AT BANGALORE %
Dated this the 31-: day ofJuly, 5
nmmm;
mm Honrsm mt Jusncs n _
ComQg_zz__y Aggh'ca§_q._rg_. No. 5:96 @2665}; 1.
Comgggzg Petition IVan I of 1
TWE :
SR1. R. DILIP KUMAR
s/0 S. RAMU, ' 3 _ -
AGED 54 YEARS, =
CHIKKASANDRA,
UTTARAHALLI, _ % %
BANGALORE. % V _ APPLICANT
suBRAMANYA?téA%_gOAfi;:"L-% *
'VS1A-Ai;._»'£'$au;1Vdhya Rao, Adv. for
A. Sri. KM. Natazaj, Adv.]
A TH E""KAI§N$iTAKA STATE FINANCE
. *'coRP<_2RAT1oN,
HAVENG rrs HEAD OFFICE AT'
rm.-.25, MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD,
.% T BERGALORE -- 560 001,
V» ' "«-REP. BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL
* . ..MANAGER (RECOVERIES).
'% M/S. DEE!-"I'HI c:EMEN'rs(P)LTD.,
(IN LIQUIDATION),
OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR,
2
ATTACHED TO HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA,
4TH FLOOR, D 65 WING,
KENDRIYA SADAN,
KORMANGALA,
BANGALORE - 34.
3. SAKLASPUR BIO TECH (P) L'r1)';'; .
NO. 1104, 1173 FLGOR, A f: '
WEST WING RAHEJA TOWERS;
M.G. ROAD, * 1 "
BANGALORE - 560 001; A
{By Sn'. Despair; Adv. for 1§'1~ 11;;u:a,a11$x1
comma? APPL1CATiG}@ IS._F:ELED'£}_I~!DER 322011011 151 09'
cpc R/W RULES 9 OF' '1'HE"cVo1gP5.m:-=_«:s (C.j0U--R'I'} RULES. 1959,
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE r:*H'3;:1o1?DE:.§as._P:ass1«:.1)v BY 'I'H§S coum' IN
COMPANY AP1=;1:C,e1f1f1--oN=:_Nc.;>. ..1~16'74/2<10r1,,___pjATE1) 1.5.2004 VIDE
ANNEXURES~(31. ?'§'HEREBY DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT
corepoaxrzon '¥'O THE S.Ai.E DEED IN RESPECT 0? THE IMMOVABT-..E', PR-OPERTK IN mvous 012* THE THIRD RESPONDENT AND THIS Appucmion 1s} 'bu FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE comm MADE ma: F€)LL£}WING:-
scannn is by a person claim' ing to of M/s Deepthi Cements Pvt Ltd., ' came to be ondened to be wound up for 211516.. its liabilities in terms of an order passed by on 15-9-1995 passed in Company Petition No 1992.
3
2. The present application is for setting aside the"»order passed by this court on 1--6«2004 passed in of 2004, which was an applieafion that Kamataka State Financial 9 permission to sell some of the properties 9. which had been pledged in the whom the company had for realising the dues, KSFC.had of the company in exercise... 29 of the State " 9 While was permitted to sell the the amount and in the credit to the borrower-company pending ordeI's~of__t_he court.
3. I it is which is sought to be set aside 9' "EhiS'api§1i(9ati0fl filed under Section 9 of the ' Rules, 1959, which is rather an abused law, than for putting to any proper use, on the ' , V _ that the applicant -- a former director of the under liquidation ----- who had given personal Q/t 4 guarantee, guaranteeing repayment of the loan by the company; that the applicant was not eavare sale that had been conducted by worth more than Rs 3.00 crore viz., for Rs 29.56 lakh; tt1atV.it.4_§vasA"to "the and prejudice of the iilge and therefore the order shotiid' also the consequential sale etc.,_..~. V' _ AV ,
4. I have counsel for the appiieenti counsel for the Official ~ " --~ '~ ~"
, a5. Stttrxtilwa would vehemently submit that if not allowed, the applicant would be and that the applicant also has made _ application for setting aside the sale etc., I fuel and as ' frigitisi. pointed out by Sri Deepak that a former director or " 1:fireetor of the oompany under liquidation is not a who is required to be heard in the matter of g/we S realizing the assets of the company under liqtjidatlon by the company court nor the position Chan gesfua vender-financial institution like KSFC of amount by exercising its statutor3):'_1'ig»h.ts; ":4 " l
6. Be that as it may, I domnot fitislllany ground to allow this applieattort; par rtica 'plarfi I setting aside the order wto"se3l'th_e property which it had taken overin exercise ores seeeery power. The action goi'. iniot very order but d1m'n.g V To get over that developtfient épplicafion to set aside the earlier order is. not 'a proper course. . 'V this company application is dismissed. Sd/..
*p3 1< Judge