M/S Lekhraj Corp Pvt Ltd vs M/S Barton Real Estate

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 10666 Kant
Judgement Date : 25 November, 2025

Karnataka High Court

M/S Lekhraj Corp Pvt Ltd vs M/S Barton Real Estate on 25 November, 2025

Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
                                                 -1-
                                                             NC: 2025:KHC:48694
                                                            RP No. 400 of 2024


                      HC-KAR



                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                            DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

                                              BEFORE
                            THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
                                 REVIEW PETITION NO. 400 OF 2024
                      BETWEEN:

                      M/S. LEKHRAJ CORP. PVT. LTD.,
                      A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER
                      THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956
                      NO. 207, RAMNIMI BUILDING, 8
                      MANDLIK ROAD, COLABA
                      MUMBAI - 400 001.
                      REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR
                      MR. SANJEEV LEKHRAJ.
                                                                  ...PETITIONER
                      (BY SMT. KRUTIKA RAGHAVAN, ADVOCATE)

                      AND:

                      1.    M/S. BARTON REAL ESTATE
Digitally signed by
AASEEFA PARVEEN             INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD.,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF                    A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER
KARNATAKA
                            THE COMPANIES ACT,
                            NO. 201, 2ND FLOOR, BARTON CENTRE
                            84, M.G.ROAD, BENGALLURU - 560 001
                            REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR
                            AASHISH B.METHA AND DANISH FAROOQ.

                      2.    M/S. SOUTHERN INVESTMENTS
                            A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER
                            THE COMPANIES ACT,
                            NO. 65, MONTIETH ROAD, EGMORE
                               -2-
                                            NC: 2025:KHC:48694
                                            RP No. 400 of 2024


HC-KAR



    CHENNAI - 600 008
    REPRESENTED BY ITS LIQUIDATOR
    MR. S.KANGAYAN
    IBBI/IPA-002/N00886/2019-2020/12770
    E-MAIL: [email protected]
                                               ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI UDAYA HOLLA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
    SRI VIVEK HOLLA, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
    NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH
    VIDE ORDER DATED 25.11.2025)

     THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 114
R/W ORDER XLVII RULE 1 OF THE CPC., PLEASED TO A
REVIEW THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
03.11.2023 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN RFA NO.
521/2021 (ANNEXURE A).

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


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR


                        ORAL ORDER

Notice to respondent No.2 is dispensed with. This Review Petition is directed against the final Order dated 03.11.2023 (as amended vide order dated 14.12.2023) passed in RFA No.521/2021, whereby the said appeal filed by respondent No.1/appellant against respondent No.2 (sole respondent in the appeal) was allowed by this Court. -3-

NC: 2025:KHC:48694 RP No. 400 of 2024 HC-KAR

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.1 and perused the material on record.

3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the first respondent/plaintiff instituted a suit against the second respondent/defendant for declaration, permanent injunction and other reliefs in O.S.No.7306/2017 before the City Civil Court, Bengaluru. By judgment and decree dated 23.2.2021, the Trial Court dismissed the said suit, aggrieved by which, the first respondent/plaintiff preferred an appeal in RFA No.521/2021 before this Court. The second respondent - sole defendant having been served with notice of the appeal was placed ex-parte vide order dated 4.10.2023 and did not contest the appeal. When the matter was posted before this Court on 03.11.2023, respondent No.1/appellant was heard and respondent No.2 (sole respondent in the appeal) remained ex- parte and did not contest the appeal, as a result of which, this Court proceeded to pass the final order dated 03.11.2023 allowing the appeal and decreeing the suit in favour of the first respondent/plaintiff.

-4-

NC: 2025:KHC:48694 RP No. 400 of 2024 HC-KAR

4. Though several contentions urged by the review petitioner and as well as the first respondent/plaintiff in support of the respective claims, it is a matter of record and an undisputed fact that as on the date on which this Court disposed of the said appeal in RFA No.521/2021 dated 03.11.2023, the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Chennai, has imposed moratorium against second respondent/defendant under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). However, while passing the final order dated 03.11.2023, the said fact was not taken into account by this Court and as such, without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the rival contentions, in the light of the moratorium imposed by the NCLT, Chennai, on the second respondent (sole respondent in RFA No.521/2021) who had remained ex-parte, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the final order dated 03.11.2023 and restore RFA No.521/2021 for reconsideration afresh and for disposal on merits and in accordance with law.

5. In the result, I pass the following:- -5-

NC: 2025:KHC:48694 RP No. 400 of 2024 HC-KAR ORDER
(i) This Review Petition is hereby allowed.
(ii) The order at 'Annexure-A' dated 03.11.2023 passed in RFA No.521/2021 is hereby set aside.
(iii) RFA No.521/2021 is restored to the file of this Court.
(iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of the review petitioner to file an application seeking impleadment in RFA No.521/2021.
(v) If the review petitioner files such an application, first respondent (appellant in RFA No.521/2021) would be entitled to file objections to the said application, which would be considered by this Court in accordance with law.

Sd/-

(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE AP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31