[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Mr. R. B. Kamath vs Official Liquidator Of M/S. Kamath ... on 2 April, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:18011-DB
OSA No. 8 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
ORIGINAL SIDE APPEAL NO. 8 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
MR. R.B. KAMATH
S/O LATE B.S KAMATH,
AGE ABOUT 63 YEARS
RESIDING AT 1206, PLANET SKS,
KADRI HILLS, MANGALORE - 575008
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. SPOORTHY COTHA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. A.S VISHWAJITH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by
PANKAJA S OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR OF
Location: HIGH
COURT OF M/S. KAMATH PACKAGING LIMITED
KARNATAKA (IN LIQUIDATION)
ATTACHED TO HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
CORPORATE BHAWAN,
NO .26-27, 12TH FLOOR,
RAHEJA TOWERS, M.G ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 001
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. SAMEEKSHA PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR
SMT. KRUTIKA RAGHAVAN, ADVOCATE)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF THE
COMPANIES ACT 1956 READ WITH SECTION 4 OF THE
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:18011-DB
OSA No. 8 of 2025
HC-KAR
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT 1961 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED 23.10.2025 ANNEXED AS ANNEXURE-A IN
CA NO.225/2025 IN CA 863/2025 IN COMPANY PETITION
NO.3/1994 AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI)
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and
Ms.Kruthika Raghavan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
for the respondent-Official Liquidator.
2. Under the challenge is an order dated 23.10.2025
passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby an
application moved by the appellant under Order VIII Rule 1A of
CPC for production of an additional document was rejected.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent-official
liquidator states that she does not propose to file any
statement of objection to the appeal and it may be disposed of
NC: 2026:KHC:18011-DB
HC-KAR
at this stage itself and she is ready to address the Court.
Accordingly, this appeal is taken up for disposal.
4. The contention on behalf of the appellant is that the
appellant was the Managing Director of the company under
liquidation which was ordered to be wound up on 04.09.1997.
Misfeasance proceedings were initiated by the respondent-
Official Liquidator under Section 543 of the Companies Act,
1956 falsely accusing the appellant and others for
mis-application of the company funds and seeking that the
appellant and others repay the company in liquidation the
amount stated in that application. It is stated that one of the
allegations made by the Official Liquidator was that the
appellant availed a fraudulent loan from Karnataka State
Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd.
(KSIIDC) to the tune of ₹90,00,000/-.
5. The appellant had filed his statement of objections
to that application with the documents he was relying on
14.09.2006. A decade later, KSIIDC issued a letter on
04.02.2016 confirming the receipt of ₹50,90,295/- in total
towards a One Time Settlement (OTS). It is stated that this
NC: 2026:KHC:18011-DB
HC-KAR
letter would disprove the allegation being levelled by the
Official Liquidator against the appellant and therefore it was
necessary to be brought on record before the learned Single
Judge, who was considering the application for misfeasance
being moved by the Official Liquidator. It is stated that the
appellant had recently discovered the letter and realised that it
was relevant for the purpose of proper decision of the Company
Application No.863/2002, which was filed by the Official
Liquidator alleging misfeasance. However, he did not realise the
relevancy of the document given the fact that the Company
Application No.863/2002 was going on for more than two
decades, it continues to be at the stage of evidence.
6. However, by means of the impugned order, the
learned Single Judge has rejected the application of the
appellant for producing the document on the ground that no
due diligence was exercised by the appellant in furnishing the
document during the period from 2016 to 2025.
7. The contention is that misfeasance proceedings
under Section 543 of the Companies Act, 1956 may render the
applicant criminally liable apart from the possibility of the civil
NC: 2026:KHC:18011-DB
HC-KAR
consequences being visited on him due to any orders being
passed by the Court accepting the application of the Official
Liquidator.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed
the application citing the delay in filing the application, but has
not been able to dispute the fact that the document that is
sought to be filed by the appellant may be required to be
considered by the Company Court for proper adjudication of
Company Application No.863/2002.
9. In our considered opinion, the document dated
04.02.2016 that is being sought to be produced by the
appellant may have a bearing on the outcome of the aforesaid
Company Application No.863/2002 given the nature of the
allegations levelled therein.
10. For the reasons aforesaid, we allow this appeal and
accept the letter dated 04.02.2016 that is enclosed as
Annexure-'B' to this appeal and which is also stated to be
enclosed with the application moved by the appellant before
the Company Court on 28.08.2025 in Company Application
NC: 2026:KHC:18011-DB
HC-KAR
No.863/2002. The said application moved by the appellant is
allowed.
11. This appeal is accordingly allowed. It is however
left open to the Official Liquidator to raise such objections to
the letter dated 04.02.2016 as may be available to it as per
law.
SD/-
(JAYANT BANERJI)
JUDGE
SD/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
HKV
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4
