Karnataka High Court
Shree Ram Steel And Rolling Industries ... vs Lander Resorts Private Limited on 9 March, 2017
Author: Raghvendra S.Chauhan
Bench: Raghvendra S. Chauhan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF MARCH, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA S. CHAUHAN
COMPANY APPLICATION NO.22/2017
IN
COMPANY PETITION NO.190/2015
BETWEEN:
SHREE RAM STEEL AND ROLLING
INDUSTRIES (UNIT-2),
NO.2, SAMRAT CHAMBERS,
KHERGADA STREET, KHARGATE,
BHAVNAGAR-364001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORISED SIGNATORY,
MR. BATUKBHAI PATEL. ... APPLICANT
(BY SRI DHYAN CHINNAPPA SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT. MOUMITA SAHA, ADV.)
AND:
LANDER RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED
1. OFFICE NO.98, SHOP NO.2,
GROUND FLOOR,
OPPOSITE ESHWARA TEMPLE,
NAGANATHAPUR, HOSUR ROAD,
BENGALURU-560100.
2. NO.101, WARD NO.2
BYRADEVANAHALLI POST,
BELLARY-583117. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI G. R. VENKATESH MURTHY, ADV.)
2
THIS COMPANY APPLICATION IS FILED UNDER RULE 9 OF
THE COMPANIES COURT RULES, 1959, PRAYING TO DIRECT
RELEASE OF AN AMOUNT OF RS.2,00,00,000/- (TWO CRORE
ONLY) CRORE DEPOSITED BY THE RESPONDENT IN THE FAVOUR
OF THE PETITIONER AND ETC.
THIS COMPANY APPLICATION IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
C.A. 22/2017 has been filed by M/s. Shree Ram Steel and Rolling Industries (Unit-2), for seeking directions from this Court, namely for release of amount of Rs.2,00,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crores only) deposited by the respondent-Company in favour of the petitioner-Company, and to permit the petitioner-Company to take out advertisement of the admission of the petition in one English Newspaper and in a vernacular Newspaper, in terms of the Companies Court Rules, 1959.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that by order dated 03.06.2016, this Court had admitted COP No.190/2015. This Court had deferred the advertisement in the newspaper for a period of four weeks so as to give an opportunity to the respondent to make payment of the due amount within the said period. Although the respondent-Company challenged the said order in OSA No.13/2016, but the OSA was eventually withdrawn on 30.08.2016. 3 Subsequently, the respondent-Company orally sought for extension of time from this Court for paying the due amount. By order dated 16.09.2016, this Court extended the time by a further period of eight weeks. But this Court directed the respondent-Company to deposit Rs.2,00,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crores only) with the Registry. Since the petitioner-Company was aggrieved by the said order, it filed an OSA No.21/2016. However, by order dated 22.11.2016, the learned Division Bench disposed of the appeal with an observation that petitioner can agitate the question for deposit, or payment of the further amount, and also for permitting withdrawal of the amount of Rs.2,00,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crores only) which was deposited by the respondent-Company with the Registry of this Court.
3. Pursuant to the order dated 03.06.2016, the respondent- Company has deposited a sum of Rs.2,00,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crores only) with this Court. Hence, the present application by the petitioner-Company.
4. The learned Senior Counsel for the applicant submits that since the said amount has been deposited, the said amount should be released in favour of the petitioner-Company, or in the alternative, the petitioner-Company should be permitted to place an advertisement in the newspaper with regard to admission of the Company Petition by this Court.
4
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent- Company submits that further period should be given to the respondent-Company to deposit the balance amount. However, the learned counsel opposes the two prayers made by the petitioner- Company before this Court. According to him the amount of Rs.2,00,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crores only) should not be released to the petitioner as there is some dispute whether any amount is owed by the respondent-Company to the petitioner-Company, or not ? Moreover, the petitioner-Company should not be permitted to advertise in the newspaper.
6. Heard the learned counsel for parties.
7. The position being taken by the learned counsel for respondent-Company is rather quixotic. For, while on the one hand, the learned counsel for respondent-Company questions the liability of on the part of the respondent-Company to pay its dues to the petitioner-Company, yet on the other hand, it seeks further extension of time from this Court for depositing the remain amount of the dues.
8. The issue before this Court is not with regard to the extension of time, but whether this Court should direct the release of Rs.2,00,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crores only) in favour of the 5 petitioner-Company, or permit the petitioner-Company to publish and advertisement in the newspaper or not ? Obviously, the respondent-Company cannot have its own way.
9. Since the respondent-Company has opposed the release of Rs.2,00,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crores only) in favour of the petitioner-Company, this Court permits the petitioner-Company to issue an advertisement, with regard to the admission of the company petition, in "Deccan Herald", National English Daily Newspaper, and in "Vijaya Karnataka", Kannada Daily Newspaper, within a period of two weeks from today.
C.A.No.22/2017 is accordingly disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE Np/-