SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Kar) 500

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU 
LALITHA KANNEGANTI, J.
M/s United Breweries (Holdings) Limited - Appellant 
Versus 
Official Liquidator, M/S Kingfisher Airlines Limited - Respondent 
Company Application No. 434 of 2024 In Company Application No. 3 OF 2017 In Company Petition No.57 of 2012
Decided on : 16-06-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Respondent:SRI.SHRISHAIL NAVALGUND, ADVOCATE FOR OL, SRI.PRAMOD NAIR, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI.MRINAL SHANKAR, SRI.DHARMA TEJ KONERU, ADVOCATE

The court confirmed its jurisdiction to transfer pending claims relating to a company in liquidation, reiterating the objectives of Section 446 of the Companies Act to streamline litigation and ensure effective management of winding up processes.

Headnote:(A) Companies Act, 1956 - Section 446 - Winding up order - Transfer of suit - The Official Liquidator sought transfer of a suit from Civil Court to High Court for claims related to a company in liquidation. Court found that service of notice to certain respondents was sufficient and that the winding up order permits transfer. It ruled that Section 446(3) is not applicable as it has been omitted and the default rules for cross-jurisdictional suits remain in effect. (Paras 2-22)

(B) Jurisdiction - Authority of winding up court - The court confirmed its jurisdiction to handle claims by or against companies in liquidation, emphasizing that the purpose of Section 446 is to consolidate proceedings and prevent parallel litigation. Issues of maintaining supremacy of higher court decisions and requiring leave under Section 446(1) were also discussed. (Paras 6, 8, 10-16)

Findings of Court:
The suit was allowed to be transferred for the sake of efficient adjudication, and due process was upheld in managing proceedings.

Issues: The main issues were whether the winding up court had the power to transfer the suit and whether Section 446(3) applied considering its amendment.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 446 is intended to streamline claims relating to companies in liquidation, and proper jurisdiction remains with the winding up court following unchanged provisions in the Companies Act.

Result: Application for transfer allowed; suit withdrawn from the City Civil Court and transferred to the High Court.

Table of Content
1. appointment of liquidator and winding-up process. (Para 2 , 3)
2. jurisdiction of the court in liquidation matters. (Para 4 , 11 , 12)
3. need for consolidation of proceedings in winding-up. (Para 5 , 8 , 19 , 21)
4. jurisdictional arguments regarding the transfer. (Para 6 , 7)
5. interpretation of section 446 and its implications. (Para 9 , 15 , 20)
6. effect of amendments on court powers. (Para 10 , 18)
7. order granting transfer of the suit. (Para 22)

ORDER :

LALITHA KANNEGANTI, J.

The Official Liquidator has filed C.A.No.434/2024 in C.A.No.3/2017 in COP No.57/2012 & others seeking following reliefs:

a) To be pleased to consider this application and transfer the existing Original Suit vide O.S 6406 of 2012 to this Hon'ble Court.

And

b) to pass such orders or directions as it may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of this Application.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Official Liquidator submits that M/s. United Breweries (Holdings) Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'UBHL' for short) was ordered to be wound up by the order dated 07.02.2017 passed in Company Petition No.57/2012 and the Official Liquidator has been appointed as Liquidator of the Company by virtue of IN COP No.57 of 2012 HC-KAR Section 449 of the COMPANIES ACT , 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for short). It is stated that the Company in liquidation prior to the winding up order had filed an original suit i.e., O.S.No.6406/2012 before the City Civil Court, Bengaluru against respondent Nos.2 to 6 and M/s.King Fisher Airlines Ltd. The reliefs that are sought in the suit are as follows:

(a) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to order and declare that the corporate guarantees dated 10.11.2010 and 01.08.2011 issued by the Plaintiff in favour of Defendant No.1 stand vitiated and are void, non-est and of no legal effect;

(b) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to permanently restrain IAE by a permanent order and injunction from taking any further steps to enforce the corporate guarantees dated 10th November 2010 and 1st August, 2011 executed by the Plaintiff in favour of Defendant No.1 and/or take any further steps to enforce any judgment, order or decree that may be passed by any court pursuant to the said corporate guarantees dated 10.11.2010 and 01.08.2011;

(c) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to order and decree that Defendant Nos. 1 to 5 jointly and/or severally, do pay to the Plaintiff an aggregate sum of U.S dollars $210,400,000/- (Approx Rs. 1,431 crores) or the rupee equivalent at the rate of exchange on the date of the decree plus Rs.162,10,00,000/- as and by way of damages; as per the detailed particulars of claim set out Document No.10 annexed herewith, together interest thereon at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of IN COP No.57 of 2012 HC-KAR filing of this suit till payment and/or realization thereof; and

(d) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to orders and decree that Defendant Nos. 1 to 5 do jointly and/or severally contribute to or indemnify the Plaintiff in respect of any and all claims that may be raised against and/or devolve upon the Plaintiff under the various corporate guarantees executed and furnished by the Plaintiff on behalf of Defendent No.6 to any of the lessors of aircraft, financiers, or any other parties. And pass such other orders in the interest of equity and justice.

3. Defendant No.6 i.e., Kingfisher Airlines Limited in the Original Suit was ordered to be wound up by the order dated 18.11.2016 passed in C.P.No.214/2012 and the Official Liquidator is appointed as Liquidator of the Company by virtue of Section 449 of the Act. It is stated that in the Company Petition No.57/2012 this Court had directed the Company-UBHL for wound up, thereby invoking jurisdiction of this Court to entertain any suit filed by or against the Company in Liquidation. It is stated that by the winding up order dated 07.02.2017, this Court had directed the Official Liquidator to administer and take char

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top