Karnataka High Court
Karnataka State Industrial Investment ... vs H M P Cements Ltd on 23 June, 2008
Bench: V.G.Sabhahit, S.N.Satyanarayana
~ V' 'M/9. H M PINVES'1'MEN'l'S(P) LTD
1 .
IN THE HIGH comm' OF KARNATAKA, BANGA.£.{)J<f§'VE__" "
DATED was on THE 23129 DAY OF
PRESENT; , V : . a "H T_
THE HON'I-3LE MR. JUSTICE . "
V V :
THE HONBLE MR. JU$TICE""S»i..iS_i'. SA1fYApiAI2A¥;{NA
M.F.A. N§;5954;.2§(33
BETWEEN %
KARNA'I'AKA_ E31'ATE_V.INDIJ_S'I'R.IAL" V
INVESTMENT 6s_.-DEVE!.OP5&E'l"----
CORPORATIORV VRI«;G;:)';- 033103
No.36, Men". moiusagg CUNNINGHAM ROAD
sANGA;'.,oR_E;, RE'§?f--BVY"§'IE._lV'iA_N'!s.(}ER
sm H VE3NKATESH'«M«0OR'FHYV.\.
. K! % APPELLANT.
(By spyums { 3:: sabsiix as H 1) JOSH], ADVs., )
.V --u;o---- " .
11 ' . HTj_M5'P CEMENTS LTD
'~._RE§}1).v.«--OFFICE AT NO 4,
FAIRLIE PLACE,
* 'A T KG!.KO'I'l'A - 700 001
'REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
REGD. OFFICE AT FAIRLIE PLACE
NO 4, FAIRLIE PLACE
I{OLKO'l"I'A - 700 001
BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
3 M,' s. H M P ENGINEERING LTD.,
REGD OFFICE AT FAIRLJE HOUSE
% égipcal the Kamataka State Industrial
_ Development Corporation Limited
_(he:Avc'i§aft§s-gr "'l£81lBC")is med being aggrkved by the
'A'%--__'{ome_r by the VI Additional City Civil Judge,
city, in Misc. case No.845/1999 dated
K : Q3_fi)9.2OO3,vvhc1ein the learned Additional City Civil Judge
1' held that the Court at Bangalore has no jurisdicvtan to
N0 4, FAIRLIE PLACE
KOLKOTTA - 700 001.
BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
(By Smt: GAYATHRI BALU Fd:2Vjis:._(s.KHAzfrA«uT A_Nt:'co.
ADVs., ma R1 * = ~ *
R2 AND R3 saavzce: HELD svp%_mc;:Em)
MFA FILED U/S; ~ 32(9) i.,L)F"=§3'rATE FINANCIAL
CORPORATIONS ACT, AGAINS'F"Ti-{E--~«.()'Rl3.ER D1'. 3.9.03
PASSED IN MISf;3.flO.$43i99 0N_'£'HE., 'FILE 09' THE
LEARNED V1 AiC.'v§)I;_;; can BANGALORE
(CCCH--11), QRDERIDJG Toz. 'Vksfwran THE PE'rmoN TO
THE APPELI;AN',T'.HERElN{ffFG*R §'RESENTATION BEFORE
THE comm: '~-EiAVIB3G--~ "Ji}RISDIé3I'ION OVER THE
INDUSTRIAL-Gx{?'NCERN."», "-
for final heaxing this day,
Sabhahit J;-,--g:1e3ive:-e:_c1":he fo;1mving:-
Z -V gmmnnr
entermin the application fibd by the appellant under
\.s>.a
3
Section 31(1)(aa) of the State Financial
1951, (hereinafter referred to as the let').
The essential facts of the case
with reference to the rank s__ hefeie etnale
Court: are as follows»
2. An applieatiqm' 3l(1)(aa)
and 32 (1) qretézg before the
City civa"qu;1--g;;;?+ numbered as Misc.
case for [an order that a sum of
Rs.2,62,C)A2,f._S53'=-*8:ilégeeg" to the petitioner as on
15.03;;1W9 rate of interest at 19%
V. oiajfhe of compound interest at quarterly
jujje sum of Rs.2,62.02,653=81Ps., from
entire amount is realized and for a
the respondents 2 and 3 to pay the said sum of
V'i§e.2Q,62,02,653=81Ps., due as on 15.03.1999 jointly and 1 together with interest at 19% per ammm on the V , of compound interest at quarterly lest basis on the sum of Rs.2,62,02,653*81Ps., from 16.03.1999 till the entire amount is realized. It is averted in the petition that \»~A 4 the first respondent, which is engaged in the manufacture of ordinaxy porfland cement at its factory ~ V. Shahbad, Gulbarga District, approached the ' for financial assistance under the; Scheme to the tune of R5200 I:akh;§. Hfng application made by the ' sanctioned a term loaz} of the Equipment Refinanccv same was communicated the letter dated 23.1 1.1994. 3'-.:.1$s':'::.;§:r . ija§«i[ % 'ééndifions of the sa.11c1:ion,__ by its f)imctor has cxc:e_'utc_d.A dated 29.111994 agrecmg and undéfmlfing to ban ofRL-1.200 iakhs in 16 qufirtsrly first quarterly instaliment of "'¥§xt installments of Rs.12.50 3 quarterly installments of Rs. 13 Iakhs jof such principal instalhnent was required iaybe aflcr an moratorium of 12 months fivom of first drawal and every subsequent instalknent of said principw sum was required to be paid on the "fcorrcspondizzg day of each and every succeeding quarter. It is finthcr averted that the first respondent had also agreed \..x< S to pay interest at 16.5% per axmum on the fiofingqf compound interest at quarterly zest basis for__t?§V1; . loan of R3200 iakhs. The first respqgxicnt 'V its mrectors has executed an 29.11.1994. The second Company formed and Act, 1956, and having at House, 4, Fairlie Place, cgacunafzao ----féqu¢st of the first zvespondcnff to pay tbs ban liability of both the first repzcscntcd by its Dhectorg. lthé »:;-;v.:ign.atorics have executed a gt1araI;_t_t:c fin Since the amount was not '~ .._tAhc 'of the agreement, application was agaizqét nfxspondents under Sections 31(1)(aa). and 32'{i)"bf The applicafimn was opposed by the '.V;espo4"ndéiz1.gs i§y contending that the application filed before Bangalore was not maintainabhe as no course had arise-.11 within the jufisdicfion of the City Civil " cmm, Bangalore, and suit could be film! only at cazcuua or 5 Guibarga Courts. Learned City Civil Judge accepting the eontention of the mspondents held that he 11% no \,.:x 6 territorial jurisdiction to entertain the gaetition urgier Section 31(1)(aa) of the Act and accordingly, ordered"
of the petition for presentation i e jurisdiction over the mdusnjar.' oon;:e;~::.- by _m:1zé.;'} awe 03.09.2003. Being aggrieved by i{$11ec., haspmferred thisappe$1e::.,.,.A_ ' 'V
3. The. in thisaPP€8l i:'3: 'V V. _ ef the trial Court that the " in Bangalore had no juxisdietéon enfefiain the petition under 3'I'(1.)(.ae). of the State Financial V ('ofgiereiien Act, is justified or calls for uintef;r£erefi.ee"jin this appeal '.> ' [We tee above point for deter::nma' tion by holding Court of City Civii Judge, Bangaloze, has to entertain the petition under Section 31(1)(aa) T " £116 Act and the order passed by the trial Court ordering return of the petition to the petitioner--appel1ant herein for presentation to the appropriate Court is liable to be set aside for the following:
\.»~» e
4. We have scrutinized the order passed bythc Add}. City Civii Judge and the _ as also the objections of the to Detailed cxa::n.ma' tion of the' 'is unnecessary as similar 3'i(1)(aa;
of the Act, bcfons: the had been rejected by thg of the same respondents; mlto.6957'/2003 by onder the order passed by the in view of the fact that part of cauisg '01' accrued to the pct:it:ionm' at _ the by the trial Court is liabk: to be " Case 'w reported ir1ILR zoos KAR 993 (KA'R1m2$;K15;%_ m13us'rR1AL INVESTMENT AND _ DEVE--LO?ME§§T CORPORATION LIMYTED Vs. M/s. H.M.P. VV_CEMENT8..LTD., AND OTHERS). In view ofthe fact that the question arising among the same parties has been VA dfixided by this Court, We answer the point for 'tvdeterminatioa by holding that the order passed, by the trial Court holding that the City Civil Court, Bangalore, has no \,_,_,JS .
8 jur1sd' iction to entertain' thc petition under Section 31(3;j{ag; of the Act, is iiabic to be set aside and * the following Orde1".-- V V. The appeal is allowed.
passed by the VI Addl. City in Misc. case No.845/ the
City Civil Court, j;*,r:'--v"entcrtain the petition and the trial Court is "¢e=is§o.§¢ "o£V'm'%}§pemon on merits in the hats of the case, no ordcr '-a;s"t§3 appeal.
Sd/-3 Judge Sd/-é Judgé