IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION.NO.1270 OF 2023 Dated: 6^th FEBRUARY, 2026 BETWEEN :

1. Kalyani Refineries Limited, rep. by its Managing Director, V.V.S. Ram Narsimha Rao, S/o.VV Subba Rao, Aged about 47 years, R/o.F-208, Metro Residency, Raj Bhavan Road, Hyderabad and Others.

… Petitioners-

Petitioners-Judgment Debtors AND

1. Margadarsi Chit Fund Limited, Office at 5-10-195, Fatehmaindan Road, Opp: Police Control Room, Hyderabad, Branch at Ameerpet, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Managing Director, Ch.Sailaja, W/o. Ch.Kiran …Respondent Respondent-Decree Holder

2. V.V.Rama Narayan Rao, S/o.V.V.Ram Narasimha Rao, Aged about 64 years old, D.No.D-347, Majestic Mansion Begumpet, Hyderabad and Others.

…Respondents Petitioners-Judgment Debtors

ORDER

1. This Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’)

assailing the order passed by the learned XXVI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad in EA.No.2 of 2016 and EP No.10 of 2005, dated 02.02.2023.

2. Petitioner Nos.1 to 3 are petitioner Nos.1, 3 and 4. Respondent Nos.2 to 4 are petitioner Nos.2, 5 and 6 and respondent No.1 is the respondent-Decree Holder (for short ‘DHR’) in EA No.2 of 2016 in EP No.10 of 2005. Petitioner Nos.1 to 3 are the Judgment Debtors (for short ‘JDR’) Nos.1, 4 and 7 and respondent Nos.2 to 4 are JDR Nos.3, 5 and 6 in EP No.10 of 2005. 3.1. Petitioners along with respondent Nos.2 to 4 have filed EA.No.2 of 2016 under Section 47 of CPC against the respondent No.1- DHR to dismiss the E.P. as in executable.

3.2. Petitioner No.2-V.V.S.Ram Narsimha Rao has sworn the affidavit on his behalf and on behalf of other petitioners in EA.No.2 of 2016.

3.3. It is stated in the affidavit that petitioner No.1-JDR No.1 was ordered to be wind up by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Company Petition No.215 of 1998, dated 30.09.1999 which was confirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court. An application was moved by petitioner No.1-petitioner No.1-JDR No.1 before the High Court under Section 391 of the Companies Act, 1956, seeking an arrangement with the unsecured creditors with a view to revive the operations of the company. Company agreed to pay an amount of Rs.1,36,77,467/- to all the unsecured creditors vide Company Petition No.70 of 2002. The High Court was pleased to approve and sanction the scheme on 09.10.2002 after ascertaining the wishes of all the parties concerned. In accordance with the sanctioned scheme, petitioner No.1-petitioner No.1-JDR No.1 paid all the unsecured creditors except the respondent No.1- respondent-DHR. Respondent No.1-respondent-DHR being unsecured creditor is bound by the scheme sanctioned by the High Court and is only entitled for the amounts as provided in the scheme. All the unsecured creditors are entitled only for principal outstanding as on 30.09.1999 i.e., Rs.4,06,321/-. Once the scheme is sanctioned, civil and criminal proceedings initiated by the unsecured creditors should be withdrawn. As per Section 391 (2) of the Companies Act, a majority in number representing 3/4th in value of creditors or class of creditors or members or class of members as the case may be, present and voting either in person or where proxies are allowed at the meeting. Petitioner No.1-petitioner No.1-JDR No.1 became Sick Industrial Company as defined under the provisions of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (for short ‘SICA’) and the reference is numbered as Case No.321 of 2004. The Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (for short ‘BIFR’) has intimated the company about the same on 28.10.2004. In view of the pendency of the reference made before the BIFR, no execution proceedings can be initiated against the petitioner No.1-petitioner No.1-JDR No.1 or against the guarantors without obtaining prior permission as provided under Section 22 of SICA scheme. Respondent No.1-

respond