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
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.