Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

M/S Chinnamasta Properties P Ltd vs The Mysore Acetate & Chemicals Co.Ltd on 27 January, 2010

Bench: D.V.Shylendra Kumar, N.Ananda

BETWEEN:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 27'"! DAY 01-' JANUARY. 2010,». Q

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE 1). V. SHXLENDRA'  _ 4

AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTIQE NV." ANAED3."  

ORIGINAL SIDE APPEAl:/ 2509 E ' "E
Misc.CivI'.l No;2'2045J;'0O9v IE   --.

M /s. CHIN1'%EANi}'aSTA' --VPRO.EI::RT1V1gs {._P]=LTD..
(NOMINEE 0-1? M,'1'f§SCM'*SUC}r@ Rs LTD..)
OP'FIC;E2'A'T' -417.3?-FLO'€)'I?.. E3ALARPU'RIA WiNDSOR.
NO.3. ULSOOR'  BAN-GAL()RE W 560 042.
AND RE{}ISTERED.Q.F}'IC'E._ AT

NO.7. cH1TrARAiaUAN'~.AVEN'UE.

KOLKATA -*740o.o72',  ' 
REP. BY ITS ALITHORISED SIGNATORY.

 _ MR...A_sL{v»'1N SAI\?C=IiI_I%3_fITI.

.. . AI3PELI.AN'1'

[By ski, ._B2$.s.AVA;"';éRzai€3;i%iU S. PATIL SR.ADVOCA'I"'E}

E MYSOEE ACETATE: & CHEMICAIS co. I.'I'D.,

v~;1NVL1Q~1;1DAT10N). REPRESENTEI) BY

 E.TH,E'~0§~'F1c:AL LIQUIDATOR.
 __"'«A'I*::AcHED TO HONBLE HIGH COURT
 ' VVQEKARNATAKA, 1v FLOOR. D & F' WING.



2

KENDRIYA SADAN, KORAMANG-ALA.
BANGALORE W 560 034.

2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE.
MANDYA. MANDYA DIST.

3. Mrs. BHARTIWII (LOCKED).
R/O. "ACETATE NAGAR".
SATHANUR VILLAGE.
KASABA--l HOBLI.
MANDYA - 571 484.   ._

 E.   

OSA.55/2009 is fiied L1ndei~"Se<ji.i0n E' 2;. 51'et.h:4;:''K;gi=n.a_1,a3ka

High Court Act, against the Order  f2'i.1V(2);2Q_R()9': passed in
c.A.No.417/2oo9:n Co.P 45/20.01.  V   

The Mise.Cvi.N0.22O45/AQ9V:'_in .bsA "'i\z§;:L.'5j,/2009 is filed
under Order XXXIX Rule '_'}-- arid 2_ ofCPCJ'.i;2/ygfliiziiie s & 9 oi' the

Companies {Court}  that for the reasons
stated in the aeeonipanfliiigi.e1Vi'fi.eié1'.*ii, this Horflbie Court may be
pleased to p3SS'E"3'I1" exparteb'  interim order di1'ect.i:ng._{ the
re$.§)Qnden.i;f%N'b.i3 or axriy-..pversQn claiming through or under them
lei'refrainV'i'1"erri"E:tiee1iirig with/eneumbering the schedule property

in afiy I*iia_fi':2ef«._Qr»vehariging its nature, in the interest of justice

 ,_and eqLiit'.y.'*7

 03455/2009 aiong with Misc. em: No.22o45/09
 &  Agrifiilor admission. i;h.i.s day. D. V. Shyiendra. Kumar. J..
 ' * .§ieii.i{erec1  foilowingt



JUDGMENT

This Appeal by the appellant-petitioner filed Lmder Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act. V. against the order dated 21.10.2009 passed 0' Application No.41?/2009. which hadlliw Company Petition No.45/2001. p 2.

2. Company Application Purchaser. claiming that opeii.1.a'iiVe"i:ion by the Officiai Liquidator it had purchased thie~t.he 15* respondent- company udder" 'la deed dated 21.07.2006 in accordance 21.05.2005 passed on "ii1...C._o1npany Petition No.45/2001. matter was heard for a while on admissioii, l\.fir.~.«--i3asava Prabhu S. Patil. learned senior ,appearing for appellant. seeks permission of this withdraw this appeal. so that the appellant can V 4 pursue remedies. if any. in accordance. with law eisewhere but not before this Court for the same eause of action.

4. A Memo is also fiied to this effect.

5. Submission of learned senior counsel t'orj"t'he appeiiant is recorded. Memo is received on record. V H' d'

6. Appeal is dismissed as withdrawn pursue such other remedies as the a{_ope1:i21'i}t"«.g1£iyj_ law elsewhere, but not to come back tothis Court; again ori* the very cause of action.

7. C0rtsec;uentViy:.'»Civil No.22045/2009 does not survive for c0ri'siderat':on"v_ari'd is dismissed. fudge Sdfe» Itidge