IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 7734 OF 2020 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

1. REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES-KARNATAKA BENGALURU

2^ND FLOOR, E-WING, KENDRIYA SADAN, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560034

2. MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS

5^TH FLOOR, A-WING, SHASHTRI BHAVAN, DR. RAJENDRA PRASAD ROAD, NEW DELHI-110001 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. KUMAR M.N., ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH M/S NAMSTE EXPORTS LTD., COURT OF

21/2, VITTAL NAGAR, KARNATAKA CHAMARAJPET, BENGALURU-560018 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. G.V.SATISH, ADVOCATE)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 12.02.2008 PASED BY LD.BOARD FOR INDUSTRIAL AND FINANCIAL RECONSTRUCTIONS IN CASE NO.281/1998 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

ORAL ORDER

The petitioners are before this Court seeking the following reliefs:-

a. "Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated

12.02.2008 passed by Ld.Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstructions in Case No.281/1998 vide Annexure-A.

b. Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated

09.03.2009, passed by Ld.Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstructions in Case No.281/1998 vide Annexure-B.

c. Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the orders dated

18.11.2013 passed by Ld.Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstructions in Case No.281/1998 vide Annexure-D.

d. Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated

24.05.2016 passed by Ld.Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstructions in Case No.281/1998 vide Annexure-E.

e. Issue a writ or direction for deleting/modifying para

15(i) of the modified sanctioned scheme MS 13 dated 03.12.2013 approved by BIFR.

f. Issue a writ or direction to the respondent to pay the requisite fee on the increased authorized share capital and file necessary e-forms as per the Companies Act, 2013.

g. Pass such other order/s as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case."

2. Facts in brief are that:-

(a) The respondent was declared a 'SICK Industrial Company' in terms of Section 3(1) (o) of the SICK Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1985', for short) by the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstructions (Board) in the hearing held on 19.03.1999. The Board sanctioned the rehabilitation scheme in terms of Section 18(4) read with Section 19(3) of the Act, 1985 vide order dated 11.07.2003 known as (SS-03) for revival of the respondent and considered the cutoff date as 30.09.2002. The Board appointed IDBI as the monitoring agency to monitor the progress of implementation of the scheme and also reviewed by the Board.

(b) The respondent had prayed for permission to increase its authorized capital from ₹20 crores to ₹50 crores and the Board vide order dated 12.02.2008 permitted the respondent to increase its authorized capital as prayed for and further by its order dated 09.03.2009 directed the concerned Registrar of Companies to exempt the respondent from paying any fee on the increased authorized capital.

(c) That on receipt of the said order, the petitioner No.1 filed an application on 25.01.2011 in the proceedings under Section 18(5) the Act, 1985 seeking for modification of the order dated 12.02.2008, on the premise that the scheme requiring waiver of payment of fee for increase in the authorized capital from ₹20 crores to ₹50 crores was not circulated to the petitioners and was contrary to the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and the Board lacked jurisdiction to pass such an order directing the petitioners to waive the fee to be paid on the increased authorized capital.

(d) That the Board without considering or referring to the said application filed by the petitioners, by its order dated 18.11.2013 held that the Board's order dated

12.02.2008 has b