IN COP NO.77 of 1987 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ COMPANY APPLICATION NO.362 OF 2023 IN COMPANY APPLICATION NO.321 OF 2020 IN COMPANY PETITION NO.77 OF 1987 BETWEEN:

THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR OF M/S. SHREE CHAMUNDI MOPEDS LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION)

ATTACHED TO HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA "CORPORATE BHAVAN" NO.26-27, 12^TH FLOOR RAHEJA TOWERS, M.G.ROAD BANGALORE- 560 001 Digitally signed by SHWETHA …APPLICANT RAGHAVENDRA (BY SRI. SHRISHAIL NAVALGUND, ADVOCATE)

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AND:

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD #14/3, 2^ND FLOOR, R.P.BUILDING NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE- 560 001 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. BASAVARAJ V.SABARAD, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI CHANDRASHEKAR P.V, ADVOCATE)

IN COP NO.77 of 1987 HC-KAR THIS COMPANY APPLICATION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 6 RULE 17 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 PRAYING TO ALLOW THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR TO AMEND THE PRAYERS OF THE CA NO.321/2020 IN ACCORDANCE WITH ORDER 6 RULE 17 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 ETC.

THIS APPLICATION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

ORAL ORDER

1. The Official Liquidator has presented the present application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with Rule 6 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, seeking amendment of the application in CA No.321 of 2020.

2. The original company application was instituted with a prayer for execution of a lease-cum-sale deed by the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (“KIADB”) in favour of the Company (in liquidation). By way of the present amendment, the Official Liquidator seeks to incorporate an additional and substantive prayer, namely, a declaration that the termination of lease notice dated 10.12.2002 issued by the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board is illegal and liable to be set aside.

3. The submission of Sri Shrishail Navalgund, learned counsel appearing for the Official Liquidator, proceeds on the foundational premise that the Company had been ordered to be wound up by this Court on 14.08.1991 and, IN COP NO.77 of 1987 HC-KAR consequent upon such order, all the assets of the Company came under the custody of this Court.

4. It is contended that once a winding-up order is passed, the Company Court assumes control over the estate of the Company, and the assets stand in custodia legis. Any action affecting the property of the Company in liquidation, including termination of leasehold rights, cannot be undertaken unilaterally by a lessor without obtaining prior leave of the Company Court.

5. It is urged that the termination notice dated 10.12.2002 was issued long after the order of winding up and without seeking permission of this Court. According to the learned counsel, such termination is legally unsustainable and non est in the eye of law. It is further submitted that the subject property forms part of the assets of the Company in liquidation and that CA No.321 of 2020 has been filed seeking execution of the lease-cum-sale deed in respect thereof.

6. The existence of the termination notice constitutes a legal impediment to the grant of the principal relief sought in the company application. Therefore, unless the validity of the termination is examined and set aside, effective adjudication of the prayer for execution of the lease-cum-

sale deed would not be possible.

IN COP NO.77 of 1987 HC-KAR

7. The amendment, it is contended, does not alter the foundational cause of action but merely seeks to bring on record a consequential and necessary relief so as to enable this Court to completely and effectively adjudicate the dispute between the parties. Refusal of the amendment, according to the learned counsel, would result in multiplicity of proceedings and compel the Official Liquidator to institute independent proceedings challenging the termination, thereby fragmenting the controversy. On thes