Karnataka High Court
R K Industries (Unit-2) vs Lander Resorts India Private Limited on 22 November, 2016
Bench: Jayant Patel, P.S.Dinesh Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2016
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR
ORIGINAL SIDE APPEAL No.20/2016
C/W
ORIGINAL SIDE APPEAL No.21/2016
IN OSA No.20/2016
BETWEEN:
R.K.INDUSTRIES (UNIT-2)
SHREE RAM HOUSE, KHERGADA STREET
KHARGATE, BHAVNAGAR - 364 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER
Mr.MUKESHBHAI BALABHAI PATEL ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI.DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI.NISCHAL DEV B.R, ADVOCATE)
AND:
LANDER RESORTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED
1. OFFCE No.98, SHOP No.2
GROUND FLOOR, OPPOSITE ESHWARA TEMPLE
NAGANATHAPUR, HOSUR ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 100
2
2. No.101, WARD No.2
BYRADEVANAHALLI POST
BELLARY - 583 117
...RESPONDENT
THIS OSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 483 OF THE
COMPANIES ACT, R/W SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH
COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
16.09.2016 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE COMPANY COURT IN
COMPANY PETITION 189/2015; AND ETC.,
IN OSA No.21/2016
BETWEEN:
SHREE RAM STEEL AND ROLLING
INDUSTRIES (UNIT - 2), No.2, SAMRAT CHAMBERS
KHERGADA STREET, KHARGATE
BHAVNAGAR - 364 001, REPRESENTED BY
ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY
Mr.BATUKBHAI PATEL ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI.NISCHAL DEV B.R, ADVOCATE)
AND:
LANDER RESORTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED
1. OFFCE No.98, SHOP No.2
GROUND FLOOR, OPPOSITE ESHWARA TEMPLE
NAGANATHAPUR, HOSUR ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 100
2. No.101, WARD No.2
BYRADEVANAHALLI POST
BELLARY - 583 117 ...RESPONDENT
3
THIS OSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 483 OF THE
COMPANIES ACT, R/W SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH
COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
16.09.2016 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE COMPANY COURT IN
COMPANY PETITION 190/2015; AND ETC.,
THESE OSAs COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JAYANT PATEL J, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
I.A.1/2016 in O.S.A.No.20/2016 and I.A.1/2016 in O.S.A 21/2016 are filed for condonation of delay in filing the OSAs. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant on the aspect of condonation of delay as well as on the merits of main OSAs.
2. The present appeals are against the order dated 16.9.2016 passed by the learned Company Judge, in COP No.189/2015 c/w COP No.190/2015, whereby the learned Company Judge has granted eight weeks time to deposit a sum of Rs.2,00,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crores only) to the 4 respondent and he has further directed to post these matters after deposit.
3. We have heard Mr. Dhyan Chinnappa, learned Senior Counsel appearing with Sri Nishchal Dev B.R., learned Counsel for the appellant.
4. The contention raised on behalf of the appellant was that earlier vide order dated 3.6.2016 in COP No.189/2015 c/w COP No.190/2015, the learned Company Judge had admitted the petitions and further directed deferment of the advertisement for a period of four weeks so as to give one more opportunity to the respondent to pay due amount within the said period. It was submitted that the due amount was at Rs.20,00,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Crores only) as observed by the learned Company Judge in the said order at paragraph No.13. He submitted that the aforesaid order of the learned Company Judge was carried by the respondent before the Division Bench of this Court in O.S.A.No.13/2016 5 and the said appeal was ultimately withdrawn vide order dated 30th August 2016. Learned Counsel submitted that once the appeal was withdrawn, the order passed by the learned Company Judge dated 3rd June 2016 had become final and thereafter it was not open to the learned Company Judge to modify the earlier order by the impugned order and hence this Court may consider in the present appeal.
5. In our view, appellant's contention is misconceived for twofold reasons. One is that in the earlier order dated 3rd June 2016 passed by the learned Company Judge, there was only deferment of the advertisement for a period of four weeks so as to give one more opportunity to the respondent to make payment of the due amount. But there was no direction to deposit the amount. The second is that in the impugned order, there is no specific order for deferment of the advertisement. Giving one opportunity to the respondent to make payment of the due amount is one aspect and time to 6 be granted to deposit the amount is another aspect. The perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Company Judge shows that the learned Company Judge for the present has granted eight weeks time to the respondent to deposit a sum of Rs.2,00,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crores only) pending consideration of the matter after the amount is deposited. When the matter is further considered, the appellant can agitate a question for deposit or payment of the further amount and also for permitting withdrawal of the amount of Rs.2,00,00,000/- (Two Crores only). At that stage, the respondent may raise contention as may be available in law and the learned Company Judge may further examine the matter.
6. Hence, at this stage, the learned Company Judge is seized with the proceedings and he is yet to consider the matter. Hence, we do not find that any interference is called for at this stage. However, it is observed that in the event 7 any further order is passed by the learned Company Judge, which has the effect of finally modifying the earlier order, the appellant may pursue the matter by filing the appeal at the appropriate stage and time but not at this stage.
7. In view of the above, we find that no useful purpose would be served in condoning the delay when after examining the merits of the appeals, we are not inclined to entertain these appeals. Hence, the applications for condonation of delay as well as O.S.As. shall stand disposed of accordingly.
[ Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE Yn.