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

2022 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 52653

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH 2022

BEFORE

THE HON9BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.104/2014

C/W.

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.90/2014

IN CRP NO. 104/2014

BETWEEN :

1.

SMT K R SATYAVATI

MA, CAIIB

W/O A.S.PATTABIRAMAN

AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,

RETIRED BANK CHIEF MANAGER,

NO.607-A,1ST MAIN ROAD,

2ND STAGE, RAJAJINAGAR,

BENGALURU - 560 010.

2.

MS.JYOTSNA PATTABIRAMAN,

BE,MBA (STANFORD)

W/O MADHURANATH KONETY

AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,

SOFTWARE ENGINEER,

NO.607-A, 1ST MAIN ROAD,

2ND STAGE, RAJAJINAGAR,

BENGALURU - 560 010.

3.

DR.K.R.PADMAVATY,

MBBS, DGO

W/O LATE RAMAMURTHY,

AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,

RETIRED GOVT.SR.MEDICAL OFFICER,

2

NO.607-A, 1ST MAIN ROAD,

2ND STAGE, RAJAJINAGAR,

BENGALURU - 560 010.

4.

DR.K.R.SRIDHAR,

S/O SRI. R.K.SHASTRY,

AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

GASTROENTEROLOGIST,

NO.607-A, 1ST MAIN ROAD,

2ND STAGE, RAJAJINAGAR,

BENGALURU - 560 010.

5.

INDIAN INSTITUTE OF ENTREPRENUER

DEVELOPMENT (REPRESENTED

BY ITS DIRECTOR SMT.MEENA JAYARAM)

OPPOSITE TO CLASSIC AVENUE,

ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD.

... PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. K SUMAN, ADVOCATE)

AND:

M/S S N FINANCE PVT LTD

(IN LIQUIDATION),

REPRESENTED BY THE OFFICIAL

LIQUIDATOR

MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS,

CORPORATE BHAVAN,

12TH FLOOR, RAHEJA TOWERS,

M.G.ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.

... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. SHRISHAIL S. NAVALGUND, ADVOCATE)

THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC. 115 OF CPC.,

AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 1.2.2014 PASSED IN

MIS.CASE NO.120/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL.

CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH NO. 25),

3

BENGALURU, ALLOWING THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION

FILED UNDER ORDER 9 RULES 9 R/W SEC.144 AND 151

OF CPC.

IN CRP NO. 90/2014

BETWEEN

A S PATTABHIRAMAN

S/O A B SUBRAMANIAN

AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS

R/A NO.607-A, 1ST MAIN ROAD

II STAGE, RAJAJINAGAR

BENGALURU - 560 010.

... PETITIONER

(BY SRI.C.V. NAGESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR

SRI. K. RAGHAVENDRA., ADVOCATE)

AND:

M/S S N FINANCE PVT LTD

(IN LIQUIDATION),

REPRESENTED BY THE OFFICIAL

LIQUIDATOR

MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS,

CORPORATE BHAVAN,

12TH FLOOR, RAHEJA TOWERS,

M.G.ROAD,

BENGALURU - 560 001.

... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. SHRISHAIL S. NAVALGUND, ADVOCATE)

THIS CRP FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC., 2000 AS

AMENDED,

AGAINST

THE

DATED

1.2.2014

PASSED IN MISC NO.120/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE III

ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU,

ALLOWING THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED UNDER

ORDER 9 RULES 9 R/W SEC.144 AND 151 OF CPC.,

4

THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND

RESERVED

ON

23.12.2021

AND

COMING

ON

FOR

PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THIS COURT

MADE THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

These petitions are filed under section 115 of the

Code of Civil Procedure (for short, 8the CPC9) by the

respondents in Misc. No. 120/2012 on the file of the III

Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru

(CCH 25) - for short, 8the Civil Court9. The proceeding in

Misc. No.120/2012, which is under Order IX Rule 9

read with section 144 and 151 of CPC, is filed by the

common respondent in both the petitions, M/s SN

Finance Private Limited, a company incorporated under

the Companies Act, 1956 and in liquidation.

2.

The respondent has filed the application in

Misc. No. 120/2012 for restoration of the original suit in

OS No. 7306/2002 which is dismissed on 16.01.2012

for default under Order IX Rule 8 of CPC. The petitioner

5

in CRP No. 90/2014, which is the first of the present

two petitions, is by the first respondent in Misc.

No.120/2012 and the first defendant in the aforesaid

suit in OS No.7306/2002. The petitioner in CRP

No.104/2014, which is the other of the petitions, is by

the second to sixth respondents in Misc. No. 120/2012

and

the

other

defendants

in

the

suit

in

OS

No.7306/2002. The civil Court by the impugned order

dated 01.02.2014 has allowed the application in

Misc.No.120 of 2012 setting aside the dismissal order

dated 16.01.2012 in OS No.7306 of 2002 and restoring

the suit for decision on merits.

3.

The respondent has commenced the suit in

O.S.No.7306/2002 for recovery of Rs.5,94,21,914.36 ps.

with interest from the petitioners, and as an alternative

prayer, the respondent has sought for declaration that

the immovable properties described in the plaint

schedule are its properties because these properties are

6

purchased

using

the

respondent9s

funds.

The

petitioners have contested the respondent9s suit by filing

the respective written statements. The suit is dismissed

for default on 16.01.2012. In the parallel proceedings

in OS No.824/2003, which is commenced by Sri A R

Pattabhiraman - the petitioner in CRP No. 90/2014 - for

possession of the suit schedule properties, there is a

decree and he has taken possession of the aforesaid

properties through the process of court in the execution

Case No. 600/2012.

4.

During the pendency of the suit in OS No.

7306/2002, the respondent is directed to be wound up

by the Company Court in COP No. 142/2004. However,

the winding up order dated 29.06.2006 is recalled on an

application viz., CA No.1001/2006. The respondent is

again directed to be wound up by the order dated

31.08.2010, and this order is confirmed with the

dismissal of the appeal filed by the respondent9s former

7

directors in OSA No. 36/2010. This appeal in OSA

No.36/2010 is dismissed on 14.01.2011.

5.

The respondent9s former directors, with the

confirmation of the winding up order with the dismissal

of the appeal in OSA No. 36/2010, have filed a memo

with the Civil Court in OS No.7306/2002 on 28.01.2011

for issuance of notice to the Official Liquidator [for

short, 8the OL9]. The petitioners, who are the defendants

in OS No. 7306/2002, are given opportunity to file

objections to this Memo dated 28.01.2011. On

02.04.2011,

the

civil

Court

has

recorded

such

statement of objections is not filed1. The suit is

dismissed for default on 16.01.2012. It is not disputed

that one of the former directors of the respondent has

informed the OL about the dismissal of the suit

repeatedly i.e., in the months of January and February

2012. The OL has filed the application in Misc. Case

1 The details of this are referred to in paragraph 23 of the

impugned order

8

No. 120/2012 on 15.02.2012 for restoration of the suit,

and as aforesaid, the civil Court has allowed t

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 Back to top