- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41774 CA NO. 225 OF 2025 IN CA NO. 863 OF 2002 IN COP NO. 3 OF 1994 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI COMPANY APPLICATION NO. 225 OF 2025 IN COMPANY APPLICATION NO. 863 OF 2002 IN COMPANY PETITION NO. 3 OF 1994 BETWEEN: MR. R.B.KAMATH, S/O. LATE B.S.KAMATH AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS RESIDING AT 1206, PLANET SKS, KADRI HILLS, MANGALORE - 575 008. …APPLICANT (BY SMT. SPOORTHI COTHA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. A.S.VISHWAJITH, ADVOCATE) AND: OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR OF M/S. KAMATH PACKAGING LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) ATTACHED TO HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, CORPORATE BHAWAN, NO. 26-27, 12TH FLOOR, RAHEJA TOWERS, M.G. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SHRISHAIL NAVALGUND, ADVOCATE FOR OL) Digitally signed by THEJAS KUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41774 CA NO. 225 OF 2025 IN CA NO. 863 OF 2002 IN COP NO. 3 OF 1994 THIS COMPANY APPLICATION IS FILED UNDER ORDER VIII RULE 1A OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 READ WITH RULE 6, 9 OF COMPANY (COURT) RULES, 1959. THIS COMPANY APPLICATION IS LISTED FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Ms.Spoorthi Cotha., counsel on behalf of Sri.A.S.Vishwajith., for the applicant and Sri.Shrishail Navalgund., counsel for the Official Liquidator have appeared in person. 2. Counsel for the applicant submits that the captioned application is filed for production of additional document i.e., Letter dated 04.02.2016 issued by the Karnataka State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited. Counsel further submits that the applicant has sworn to an affidavit narrating the reasons to allow the application. Counsel therefore, submits that the same may be taken note of and the application may be allowed. 3. Counsel for the Official Liquidator submits that a detailed statement of objection is filed to the application. The - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41774 CA NO. 225 OF 2025 IN CA NO. 863 OF 2002 IN COP NO. 3 OF 1994 same may be taken note of and the application may be dismissed. 4. Heard the arguments and perused the application and also the statement of objections with utmost care. 5. The captioned application is filed for the production of additional document i.e., letter dated 04.02.2016 issued by the Karnataka State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited to the applicant. Mr.R.B.Kamath - the applicant has sworn to a declaration of facts in the form of an affidavit. In the affidavit he has stated that the statement of objections was filed in 2006 and the letter was issued only in 2016, hence he could not produce it along with the statement of objections. Urging other reasons, a prayer is made to allow the application. The true copy of the letter is furnished along with the application. It is dated 04.02.2016. Except stating that the letter was issued after filing of statement of objections, nothing has been stated by the applicant that despite due diligence, the document was not furnished from 2016 till 2025. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41774 CA NO. 225 OF 2025 IN CA NO. 863 OF 2002 IN COP NO. 3 OF 1994 Counsel for the applicant in presenting her arguments strenuously urged that no prejudice will be caused to the other side if the application is allowed. The said contention cannot be accepted, what is required to be considered is whether the applicant was diligent in producing the document well in time. The answer is No. There is an inordinate delay of almost nine years in filing the application. Needless to say, a feeble attempt is made to delay the proceedings. The reasons accorded in the application are not satisfactory. I decline to allow the application and permit the applicant to furnish the said document. 6. Resultantly, the Company Application is rejected. SD/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE TKN/KMV List No.:1 Sl No.:1