- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46288 CA No. 254 of 2025 AND CA No. 255 of 2025 IN CA No. 32 of 2021 IN COP No. 132 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M COMPANY APPLICATION NO.254 OF 2025 AND COMPANY APPLICATION NO.255 OF 2025 IN COMPANY APPLICATION NO.32 OF 2021 IN COMPANY PETITION NO.132 OF 2011 IN CA NO.254 OF 2025 BETWEEN: M/S. ARTEK ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, 505, MADHUBAN BUILDING, 55, NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI - 110 019. ALATERNATIVE ADDRESS M/S. ARTEK ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, 603, MANJUSHA, 57 NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI - 110 019. …APPLICANT (BY SRI. BHARATH K., ADVOCATE) AND: OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR OF M/S. ORDYN TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED, ATTACHED TO THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, CORPORATE BHAVAN, NO.26-27, Digitally signed by THEJAS KUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46288 CA No. 254 of 2025 AND CA No. 255 of 2025 IN CA No. 32 of 2021 IN COP No. 132 of 2011 12TH FLOOR, RAHEJA TOWERS, M.G.ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.SHRISHAIL NAVALGUND, ADVOCATE FOR OL) THIS COMPANY APPLICATION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 R/W RULES 6 AND 9 OF COMPANY (COURT) RULES, 1959. IN CA NO.255 OF 2025 BETWEEN: M/S. ARTEK ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, 505, MADHUBAN BUILDING, 55, NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI - 110 019. ALATERNATIVE ADDRESS M/S. ARTEK ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, 603, MANJUSHA, 57 NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI - 110 019. …APPLICANT (BY SRI. BHARATH K.,ADVOCATE) AND: OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR OF M/S. ORDYN TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED, ATTACHED TO THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, CORPORATE BHAVAN, NO.26-27, 12TH FLOOR, RAHEJA TOWERS, M.G.ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.SHRISHAIL NAVALGUND., ADVOCATE FOR OL) THIS COMPANY APPLICATION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 R/W RULES 6 AND 9 OF COMPANY (COURT) RULES, 1959. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46288 CA No. 254 of 2025 AND CA No. 255 of 2025 IN CA No. 32 of 2021 IN COP No. 132 of 2011 THESE COMPANY APPLICATOINS ARE LISTED FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Sri.Bharath.K., counsel for the applicant and Sri.Shrishail Navalgund., counsel for the Official Liquidator have appeared in person. 2. Counsel Sri.Bharath.K., submits that applications are filed in C.A.No.255/2025 and C.A.No.254/2025 to condone the delay in filing the application and to recall the order dated 26.07.2022. Counsel further submits that the delay is neither wanton nor with any malafide intention. No prejudice will be caused to the other side if the delay is condoned. Counsel, therefore, submits that the delay in filing the application may be condoned and the order dated 26.07.2022 may be recalled. Urging several contentions, counsel for the Official Liquidator submits that the Company Applications may be dismissed. 3. Heard the arguments and perused the application papers with utmost care. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46288 CA No. 254 of 2025 AND CA No. 255 of 2025 IN CA No. 32 of 2021 IN COP No. 132 of 2011 4. Suffice it to note that the matter i.e., Company Application No.32/2021 was listed on 26.07.2022 for evidence, on that day, the advocate for respondent prayed time to cross- examine PW1. As there was no proper reasons assigned, the prayer for adjournment was rejected and cross examination of PW1 was taken as Nil. It is noted that the captioned applications are filed to condone the delay in filing the applications and to recall the order dated 26.07.2022. In the application, it has been stated that the applicant was in extreme bad health conditions and had symptoms of Covid-19 and could not instruct the counsel for conducting cross of the Official Liquidator of the Company (in Liquidation). It is also stated that the applicant changed the advocate on record and engaged a new counsel and upon perusal of the papers, the applicant was advised to file necessary application to recall the order dated 26.07.2022. The reasons accorded in the application to condone the delay cannot be accepted. There is nothing on record to show that the applicant was suffering from ill-health. Moreover, changing of counsel is not a ground to condone the delay and to recall the order. The applications are liable to be rejected. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46288 CA No. 254 of 2025 AND CA No. 255 of 2025 IN CA No. 32 of 2021 IN COP No. 132 of 2011 5. Resultantly, C.A.No.254/2025 and C.A.No.255/2025 are rejected. Sd/- (JYOTI M) JUDGE TKN List No.:1 Sl No.:9