Karnataka High Court
Brunton Developers vs United Breweries (Holdings) Limited ... on 31 October, 2025
-1-
OSA No. 2 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
ORIGINAL SIDE APPEAL NO.2 OF 2025
IN
COMPANY APPLICATION NO.242 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
BRUNTON DEVELOPERS
A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.1
THE FALCON HOUSE,
MAIN GUARD ROAD CROSS
BENGALURU - 560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER
MR. T.B. VENKATESH.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI UDAYA HOLLA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT. MAYA HOLLA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by 1. UNITED BREWERIES (HOLDINGS) LIMITED
MOUNESHWARAPPA
NAGARATHNA (IN LIQUIDATION)
Location: High Court
of Karnataka REPRESENTED BY THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR
NO.12, RAHEJA TOWERS,
M. G. ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. BRUHAT BENGALURU
MAHANAGARA PALIKE (BBMP)
HUDSON CIRCLE, N. R. SQUARE
BENGALURU - 560 002.
3. THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER
MUNICIPAL WARD NO.111
BRUHAT BENGALURU
MAHANAGARA PALIKE (BBMP)
-2-
OSA No. 2 of 2025
HUDSON CIRCLE, N.R. SQUARE
BENGALURU - 560 002.
4. M/S. JSM CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
COMPANIES ACT, 1956
HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT:
3RD FLOOR,
TODI BUILDING
MATHURDAS MILL COMPOUND
LOWER PAREL WEST
BENGALURU-400 013.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. KRUTHIKA RAGHAVAN, ADVOCATE ALONG WITH
SRI KAILAS NATH, ADVOCATE, SRI B.P. CHENGAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R-1;
SRI B.L. SANJEEV, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 AND R-3;
SRI AJESH KUMAR S., ADVOCATE FOR R-4)
***
THIS ORIGINAL SIDE APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 483
OF COMPANIES ACT, 1956 READ WITH SECTION 4 OF THE HIGH
COURT OF KARNATAKA ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 14-3-2025 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE COMPANY
COURT IN COMPANY APPLICATION NO.242 OF 2023 IN COMPANY
PETITION NO.57 OF 2012 AND ETC.
THIS ORIGINAL SIDE APPEAL, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED ON 17.09.2025 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, VENKATESH NAIK T. J., PRONOUNCED THE
FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
-3-
OSA No. 2 of 2025
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T) The appellant has filed this appeal under Section 483 of the Companies Act, 1956, read with Section 4 of the High Court Act, 1961, and sought for the following reliefs:
"A) Call for the records of the application in C.A. No.242/2023 in Co.P No.57/2012 on the file of the learned Company Court;
B) Set aside the order dated 14.03.2025 passed by the learned Company Court in C.A. No.242/2023 in Co.P No.57/2012;
C) Consequently, allow the application in C.A. No.242/2023 in Co.P No.57/2012 and direct the first respondent to cooperate and execute necessary documents to transfer the Khata; and D) Pass such other and further orders as may be just."
2. The operative portion of the order dated 14.03.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.A. No.242/2023 reads as under:
"a. The Sale Deed dated 21.05.2012 executed by the Company in liquidation in favour of the applicant being void in terms of Section 536 and 537 of the Companies Act, 1956 and Section 334 and 335 of the Companies Act, 2013 are formally declared to be void.
b. The jurisdictional Sub-Registrar is directed to cause entries in his books about the said Sale Deed being void and cancel the entries relating thereto in his register.-4- OSA No. 2 of 2025
c. The Official Liquidator is directed to take possession of the property bearing unit No. 202 (New No.222) situate in level/floor - III of "CANBERRA" block, in UB- City, Bengaluru along with the open space attached thereto.
d. If the applicant were not to hand over possession thereof, the Official Liquidator is directed to take possession of the said premises in accordance with law.
e. On taking possession of the said premises, the Official Liquidator is directed to bring the said property for auction after taking necessary permission from this Court and complete the auction process in accordance with law by obtaining such orders from this Court as and when are necessary."
3. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the appellant - M/s. Brunton Developers is before this Court.
4. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the learned Single Judge of this Court.
5. Brief facts of the appellant's case are as under:-
The Prestige Estates Projects Private Limited ('Developer' for short), a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, entered into a joint development agreement with United Breweries (Holdings) Ltd., first respondent herein, for developing the property bearing No.24, Vittal Mallya road, Bengaluru, belonging to the latter for construction of a -5- OSA No. 2 of 2025 commercial building. As per the terms of the Joint Development Agreement, upon completion of the project (which was named 'UB City'), the Developer was entitled to 45% share in each unit, while the first respondent was entitled to retain 55% share in each unit.
6. Accordingly, Unit No. 202 (New No. 222), comprising 4,210 sq. ft. of covered space, on level/floor III of Canberra Block, which is a single unit with single entrance and exit, was jointly held by the Developer and the first Respondent. The Developer held 45% of the unit, amounting to 1,894 sq. ft. The first respondent held the remaining 55%, amounting to 2,316 sq. ft. In addition to the covered space, in the said unit, included an open space area measuring 2,858.90 sq. ft, which was also distributed in the same proportion. The measurement of the property, i.e., an area of 1,515.80 sq. ft. fell to the share of the first respondent and an area of 1,343.10 sq. ft. fell to the share of the Developer.
7. A sister concern of the appellant, namely, Prestige Cuisine, purchased the Developer's share of 45% from the Developer by way of a registered sale deed dated 11.11.2011. Since the Unit is one with single entrance and exit, appellant -6- OSA No. 2 of 2025 purchased 55% share of Unit No.202 (New No.222) held by the first respondent under a registered sale deed dated 21.05.2012. The aforesaid property is hereinafter referred to as the 'schedule property'.
8. The scheduled property was conveyed by the first respondent to the appellant under a duly stamped and registered sale deed dated 19.05.2012 for a valuable consideration of Rs.3,00,00,000/- (Rupees Three Crores only), which was paid to the first respondent by way of pay order (demand draft) bearing No. 146544 dated 19.05.2012, drawn on Royal Bank of Scotland, Bangalore Branch and the same was fair market price and in fact was above the guidance value for the property at the time of the sale.
9. The sale was made in the ordinary course of business of the first respondent. In its annual report for the year 2011-12, the first respondent has clearly set out its intention to sell portions of UB City, including the schedule property. The appellant thus became the absolute owner of the schedule property. Since the execution of the sale deed dated 21.05.2012, the appellant has been in peaceful and -7- OSA No. 2 of 2025 uninterrupted possession of the schedule property for the last 13 years.
10. Subsequently, the appellant discovered that a single khata existed for the entire Unit No. 202 (New No. 222) despite the unit being originally held jointly by two separate entities. Notably, single khata was registered solely in the name of the first respondent.
11. After the United Breweries Holdings Limited, (UBHL) was directed to be wound up by this Court as per its order dated 07.02.2017, which order came to be confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the year 2020, the appellant sought No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the Official Liquidator for transfer of khata of the schedule property in the records of BBMP. The Official Liquidator demanded reimbursement of the property tax that he is stated to have paid in respect of the schedule property since the khata was standing in the name of the first respondent. Consequently, the appellant paid a sum of Rs.29,50,916/- (Rupees Twenty Nine Lakhs Fifty Thousand Nine hundred and Sixteen only) to the Official Liquidator.
-8-OSA No. 2 of 2025
12. Despite complying with the demand made by the Official Liquidator, the Official Liquidator did not grant NOC and consequently, the appellant filed an application C.A. No.242/2023, before the learned Single Judge of this Court for a direction to the Official Liquidator to co-operate with the appellant for transfer of khata of the schedule property in favour of the appellant, who indisputably, is the owner of the schedule property, under a valid registered sale deed executed way back in the year 2012. Though the prayer made by the appellant was for a direction to the Official Liquidator to grant NOC for transfer of khata of the schedule property in the name of the appellant in the records of BBMP, the learned Company Judge has declared the sale deed of the appellant dated 21.05.2012 as being void with a direction to the jurisdictional Sub-Registrar to cancel the sale deed and to make an entry relating thereto in the register and has further directed the Official Liquidator to take over the schedule property.
13. The order passed by the learned Company Judge is without there being any specific application for the directions which is now ordered. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of decisions viz., in the case of Bachhaj Nahar v. Nilima -9- OSA No. 2 of 2025 Mandal and Another, reported in (2008) 17 SCC 491 and Rajasthan Art Emporium v. Kuwait Airways and Another, reported in (2024) 2 SCC 570, has held that the Courts cannot grant the relief which are not prayed for.
14. Sri. Udaya Holla, learned Senior counsel for Smt. Maya Holla, appearing for the appellant vehemently contended that the order passed by the learned Company Judge is wholly erroneous, contrary to the facts of the case and evidence on record and law.
15. Learned Company Judge has erred in not noticing that the prayer made by the appellant in the application was for a direction to the first respondent to issue No Objection Certificate (NOC) for transfer of khata. Learned Company Judge not only rejected this prayer, but has also directed cancellation of the registered sale deed executed in favour of the appellant nearly 13 years back and further directed the Official Liquidator to take possession of the schedule property, in the absence of any prayer in that regard.
16. Learned Company Judge has granted the declaration that the sale deed is void. The period of limitation
- 10 -
OSA No. 2 of 2025for seeking declaration under Section 58 of the Limitation Act is 3 years, and the same period applies for seeking cancellation. When that is so, declaration and relief of cancellation granted 13 years after registered sale deed and filing of the winding-up petition are barred by law of Limitation.
17. Further, it is contended that Unit No.202 (New No.222) is a single Unit with single entrance and exit, and therefore it is not possible to be bifurcated and further as 45% of the share of the unit belonging to the Developer was purchased by the sister concern of the appellant, only the appellant or its sister concern could have purchased remaining 55% of the undivided share in the unit. No buyer would be willing to purchase an undivided share in a single unit with single entrance and exit of which 45% is owned by somebody else. This aspect of the matter is not at all considered by the learned Company Judge.
18. The schedule property was purchased under registered sale deed executed for valuable consideration, which was higher than the guideline value. When that is so, the khata ought to have been automatically transferred in the name of the purchaser (appellant). Khata is not a document of title and
- 11 -
OSA No. 2 of 2025that it only enables collection of property tax by the BBMP. When that is so, transfer of khata ought to have been given in a routine manner, having regard to the fact that there exists a registered sale deed.
19. This Court, as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court, have time and again held that the co-ordinate benches are bound to follow orders of co-ordinate benches and cannot deviate therefrom and if a judge does not agree with the view expressed, the matter has to be referred to a larger Bench. The impugned judgment has been passed in blatant disregard to settled principles of the law. The impugned order misinterprets Section 536 of the Companies Act, 1956. On all these grounds, learned counsel for the appellant prays to allow this appeal.
20. Smt. Kruthika Raghavan, along with Sri Kailas Nath, Sri B.P. Chengappa, learned counsel for respondent No.1, vehemently contended that, by virtue of Section 536 of the Companies Act, 1956, the sale having occurred soon after the institution of the winding-up proceedings, the same is required to be considered as a fraudulent transaction, and consequently, the Official Liquidator cannot co-operate with the appellant, for transfer of khata. Further, any transfer done after the
- 12 -
OSA No. 2 of 2025commencement of winding-up proceedings shall be considered to be void in view of Section 536(2) of the Act. The sale deed was executed without leave of the Court, which is contrary to Section 537 of the Companies Act.
21. Sri B.L.Sanjeev, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3, vehemently submitted that the matter may be disposed of in accordance with law.
22. Sri Ajesh Kumar S., learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 - Official Liquidator, vehemently contended that the learned Company Judge, after considering all aspects of the matter, has rightly passed the impugned order, which requires no interference. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
23. Heard the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for respondent No.1, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and learned Official Liquidator for respondent No.4.
24. After perusing the material available on record, the following point arises for our consideration in this appeal:
- 13 -OSA No. 2 of 2025
Whether the impugned order passed by the learned Company Judge requires interference by this Court?
25. We have perused the impugned order. The learned Company Judge has dismissed the application filed by the appellant. In fact, the appellant had filed Company Application No.242/2023 under Rules 6 and 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, to effect change of khata of Schedule B and C properties. Hence, it is just and necessary to analyze Rules 6 and 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959.
26. Rule 6 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, reads as under:
"Rule 6. Practice and Procedure of the Court and provisions of the Code to apply - Save as provided by the Act or by these rules the practice and procedure of the Court and the provisions of the Code so far as applicable, shall apply to all proceedings under the Act and these rules. The Registrar may decline to accept any document which is presented otherwise than in accordance with these rules or the practice and procedure of the Court."
27. Hence, Rule 6 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, states that the practice and procedure of the Court, along with provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, will
- 14 -
OSA No. 2 of 2025apply to all proceedings under these Rules, unless specified otherwise by the Act or the Rules.
28. Rule 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, reads as under:
"Rule 9. Inherent powers of Court - Nothing in these rules shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent powers of the Court to give such directions or pass such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court."
29. Thus, Rule 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, grants the Court inherent power to pass any necessary orders for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of its process. This Rule is analogous to Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and is used to handle situations not explicitly covered by other Rules. It allows Courts to issue directions for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the Court's process, even when there is no other specific provision in the Rules to do so.
30. In the instant case, the fact in issue involved is that the appellant purchased the scheduled property under registered sale deed dated 21.05.2012 from respondent No.1 - UBHL. The appellant approached the BBMP for transfer of
- 15 -
OSA No. 2 of 2025khata in respect of the property and also sought No Objection Certificate for the transfer and bifurcation of khata. However, the Official Liquidator raised an objection that it would not be possible to provide such No Objection Certificate without obtaining a direction from this Court, since the sale deed was registered post the institution of the winding-up proceedings against the Company in liquidation. Further, such transaction is to be considered a fraudulent transaction; thus, the Official Liquidator cannot co-operate with the appellant for the transfer of khata.
31. The learned Company Judge, by relying on sub- section 2 of Section 536 of the Companies Act, 1956, declared the sale deed executed by the appellant dated 21.05.2012 as null and void, by holding that any transfer done after the commencement of winding-up proceedings shall be considered to be void. There is a violation of Section 537 of the Companies Act, 1956, since the sale deed was executed after the commencement of winding-up proceedings without the leave of the Court and as such, the sale deed is void and required to be annulled, for the same having been executed in
- 16 -
OSA No. 2 of 2025a mala fide and illegal manner. Hence, it is just and necessary to analyze Section 537 of the Companies Act.
"[537. AVOIDANCE OF CERTAIN ATTACHMENTS, EXECUTIONS, ETC., IN WINDING UP BY TRIBUNAL (1) Where any company is being wound up by the Tribunal -
(a) any attachment, distress or execution put in force, without leave of the Tribunal against the estate or effects of the company, after the commencement of the winding up ; or
(b) any sale held, without leave of the Tribunal of any of the properties or effects of the company after such commencement ;
shall be void.
(2) Nothing in this section applies to any proceedings for the recovery of any tax or impost or any dues payable to the Government.
1. Substituted by the Companies (Second Amendment) Act, 2002 (w.e.f. a date yet to be notified). Prior to its substitution, section 537 read as under:
"537. Avoidance of certain attachments, executions, etc., in winding up by, or subject to supervision of, Court. -
(1) Where any company is being wound by or subject to the supervision of the Court-
(a) any attachment, distress or execution put in force, without leave of the Court, against the estate or effects of the company, after the commencement of the winding up ; or
(b) any sale held, without leave of the Court, of any of the properties or effects of the company after such commencement ; shall be void.
- 17 -
OSA No. 2 of 2025(2) Nothing in this section applies to any proceedings for the recovery of any tax or impost or any dues payable to the Government."
32. Thus, Section 537 of the Companies Act, 1956, makes certain actions void if they are taken against a Company after the winding-up process has begun and without the Court's leave. Specifically, it renders any attachment, distress, or execution, as well as any sale of the Company's property, void under these conditions. This provision ensures that a Company's assets are not unfairly dispersed while the Court is overseeing the winding-up process. The Section applies when a Company is being wound up by or under the supervision of the Court. Transactions are void if they occur after the commencement of winding-up (which is the date the winding- up petition is filed) and are carried out without the Court's leave.
33. In this regard, the learned Company Judge framed the following points for consideration as under:
1) Whether the sale of the property by the company in liquidation after the commencement of winding-up proceedings is void in terms of Sections 536 and 537 of the Companies Act, 1956 and whether the sale should be validated by this court despite being executed post the initiation of winding-up?
- 18 -
OSA No. 2 of 2025
2) Whether the sale was conducted in the ordinary course of business in a bona fide manner without the intention to defraud creditors?
3) Whether the sale price was fair and above the market value at the time of the sale and the valuation reports submitted by the applicant are credible and contemporaneous or was the transaction structured in a way that benefited related parties to the detriment of creditors?
4) Whether the application is barred by limitation under Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and or the principles of delay and laches would be applicable in the event of Limitation Act not being applicable?
5) Whether the transaction was an arm's - length transaction or a related-party transaction requiring additional scrutiny?
6) Whether the property sold included additional space not properly accounted for in the valuation and was an additional benefit given to the applicant?
7) Whether the applicant's offer to pay an additional amount for the open space is a genuine attempt to resolve the dispute or an admission of undervaluation?
8) What order?
34. We have perused the material available on record. The appellant sought the relief to direct the Official Liquidator to issue 'No Objection Certificate (NOC)' for the transfer of khata in respect of property purchased by the appellant in its name. Whereas, the appellant purchased the property in question during the pendency of winding-up of proceedings from respondent No.1 - Company. Hence, it is just and necessary to analyze Section 536 of the Companies Act, 1956.
- 19 -
OSA No. 2 of 2025
"536. AVOIDANCE OF TRANSFERS, ETC., AFTER COMMENCEMENT OF WINDING UP (1) In the case of a voluntary winding up, any transfer of shares in the company, not being a transfer made to or with the sanction of the liquidator, and any alteration in the status of the members of the company, made after the commencement of the winding up, shall be void.
(2) In the case of a winding up by [the Tribunal], any disposition of the property (including actionable claims) of the company, and any transfer of shares in the company or alteration in the status of its members, made after the commencement of the winding up, shall, unless the [Tribunal] otherwise orders, be void."
35. Section 334 of the Companies Act, 2013, contemplates:
"334. Transfers, etc., after commencement of winding up to be void: - In the case of a winding up by the Tribunal, any disposition of the property including actionable claims, of the company and any transfer of shares in the company or alteration in the status of its members, made after the commencement of the winding up shall, unless the Tribunal otherwise orders, be void".
36. In the instant case, the sale admittedly having been executed post the institution of the winding-up proceedings, the provision of Section 334 of the Act of 2013 would automatically be invoked, rendering the said transaction
- 20 -
OSA No. 2 of 2025to be void. The appellant failed to approach to seek permission of this Court to validate the transaction and having continued to take the benefits under the transaction without even post- facto permission from this Court would establish that the transaction is in violation of Section 334 of the Companies Act, 2013.
37. No permission has been taken from the Court within a reasonable period of time after the Company was ordered to be wound up and in fact, even after the winding up order of the Company. The only relief which has been sought for is a direction to the Official Liquidator in respect of transfer of khata.
38. The above being the facts, the sale having occurred subsequent to the initiation of the winding-up proceedings and even till date, there being no application filed by the applicant for validation of the sale, hence, the learned Single Judge of this Court was of the considered view that:
"the rigor of Section 536 and 537 of the Act of 1956 would be applicable and the transaction having been declared to be void by the operation of statute, no indulgence of this Court having been sought for by seeking for validation of the sale, there is no question
- 21 -OSA No. 2 of 2025
of validation of such a sale. It is only an oral request made by the applicant, and the same cannot be considered".
We uphold the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge. The sale having been occurred subsequent to the initiation of the winding up proceedings and no prayer or application having been filed for validation of the same, in view of the rigour of Sections 536 and 537 of the Companies Act, the transaction of sale of the property in question would be void by the operation of law. When there was no indulgence sought by the appellant/applicant seeking for validation of sale, the learned Single Judge was right in holding that there was no question of validity of such sale on oral request.
39. So far as point No.2 "whether the sale was conducted in the ordinary course of business in a bona fide manner without the intention to defraud the creditors" as contended by the appellant/applicant is concerned, the learned Single Judge having considered the facts and circumstances of the case has rightly concluded that the property in question was sold after the filing of the winding up proceedings and as the sale had occurred post filing of the winding up proceedings and no relief of validation of the said sale was sought for, the sale of the
- 22 -
OSA No. 2 of 2025property was not in the ordinary course of business of the company in liquidation and therefore, it was rightly observed that the sale of the subject property in favour of the appellant/applicant was not in ordinary course of the business and was done in order to defeat the claim of the creditor.
40. As the appellant/applicant had contended before the Company Court that the sale price was fair and above the market value at the time of sale and the valuation report submitted by the applicant was contemporaneous, the Court had appointed a Valuer to carry out the measurement of the property and the valuer had submitted a report stating that the retail space of the property in question would be 2797.90 sq.ft carpet area and built up area would be 3271.10 sq.ft. The built up area measurement in the sale deed was stated to be 2316 sq.ft and there was a difference of 955.10 sq.ft. Insofar as the open space is concerned, the report indicates that there was an open space of 2659.50 sq.ft whereas, in terms of the sale deed, it is indicated to be 1515.80 sq.ft. The learned Single Judge having considered these facts has rightly observed that the valuation of the property made in the sale deed was not fair market value at the time of the sale and the valuation
- 23 -
OSA No. 2 of 2025was much less than the value at which the developer sold his share of the same unit under a contemporaneous document. The transaction was not bona fide and has been structured in a way to benefit a related party to the Managing Director of the Company in Liquidation.
41. It will also be relevant to mention here that the transaction was entered into by the Company in Liquidation of which the Managing Director was the son of the partner of the applicant, the purchaser and the same would indicate that the transaction was between related parties. The transaction was structured in a manner as to cause detriment to the creditors, large in number.
42. The learned Single Judge has also answered the issue; "whether the application was barred by limitation under Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and/or the principles of delay and laches would be applicable in the event of Limitation Act not being applicable against the appellant" and held that the application would be barred by limitation in terms of Article 113 of the Limitation Act.
43. It may be noted that the alleged sale took place on 21.05.2012 and the winding up petition was filed on
- 24 -
OSA No. 2 of 202526.03.2012. Application No.242/2023 came to be filed on 30.06.2023 seeking for a direction to the Official Liquidator to execute necessary application and to provide all cooperation necessary to the applicant for change of khata of the property and a direction to the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike to effect change in the khata. The winding up order came to be passed on 07.02.2017 and Application No.242/2023 was filed on 30.06.2023.
44. The learned Single Judge having considered Article 113 of the Limitation Act has been of the opinion that the application was barred by limitation. We are of the considered view that the view taken by the learned Single Judge is not the incorrect view or against the law. Therefore, so far as the findings of the learned Single Judge on Point Nos.1 to 7 are concerned, they do not require any interference and thus, we affirm the findings of the learned Single Judge so far as the dismissal of the application filed by the applicant is concerned. However, as far as the directions given by the learned Single Judge in paragraphs 86.3, 86.4, 86.5 and 86.6 as,
- 25 -
OSA No. 2 of 2025
"86.3 The jurisdictional Sub-Registrar is directed to cause entries in his books about the said sale deed being void and cancel the entries relating thereto in his register.
86.4 The official liquidator is directed to take possession of the property bearing Unit No.202 (New No.222) situate in Level/Floor-III of 'CANBERRA' Block in UB City along with the open space attached thereto.
86.5 If the applicant were not to hand over possession thereof, the official liquidator is directed to take possession of the said above premises in accordance with law.
86.6 On taking possession of the said premises, the official liquidator is directed to bring the said property for auction after taking necessary permission from this Court and complete the auction process in accordance with law by obtaining such orders from this Court as and when are necessary."
45. We are of the view that the said directions were not warranted as no such prayer was made by the Official Liquidator by filing a separate application. The said relief/directions in the application of the appellant/applicant should not have been granted to the Official Liquidator. Thus, we set aside the directions in paragraphs 86.3, 86.4, 86.5 and 86.6 in the impugned judgment and leave it open to the Official Liquidator to take recourse to appropriate proceedings, if the Official Liquidator is so advised, in respect of the property in question.
- 26 -
OSA No. 2 of 2025With the aforesaid observations, we dispose of this appeal.
In view of the disposal of the appeal, pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.
Sd/-
(D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE AM/MN