- 1 - OSA No. 17 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T ORIGINAL SIDE APPEAL NO.17 OF 2023 BETWEEN: SRI H.M. KESHAVAREDDY S/O. MUNIREDDY H. HOSAHALLI NOW AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS RESIDING AT HENNAGARA VILLAGE JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT - 560 105. …APPELLANT (BY SRI HALASHETTI JAGADISH SIDRAMAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR ATTACHED TO HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA IN LIQUIDATION PROCEEDINGS OF M/S. OMKAR ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED CORPORATION BHAVAN, RAHEJA TOWER NO.26-27, M.G. ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. SMT. T.S. BANU W/O. LATE TALLAM V. NAGARAJA VILLA NO.11, HIMAGIRI MEADOWNS B.G. ROAD, GOTTIGERE VILLAGE BENGALURU - 560 083. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.S. MAHADEVAN, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 12.06.2024, SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R-2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) * * * THIS OSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 483 OF COMPANIES ACT, 1956 R/W SECTION 4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, Digitally signed by MOUNESHWARAPPA NAGARATHNA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - OSA No. 17 of 2023 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 5-4-2023 IN C.A.NO.136/2021 IN COP NO.192/2011 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN SO FAR AS DIRECTING THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR, THE RESPONDENT HEREIN TO TAKE POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY IN SY.NO.23/5 BY REMOVING WHOEVER IS IN OCCUPATION, IF NECESSARY, BY REQUISITIONING THE POLICE FORCE, WHICH IS MARKED AS ANNEXURE-B, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC. THIS ORIGINAL SIDE APPEAL, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 08.09.2025 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, VENKATESH NAIK T. J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T CAV JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T) The appellant has filed this appeal under Section 483 of the Companies Act, 1956 read with Section 4 of the High Court Act, 1961 seeking to set-aside the order dated 05.04.2023 passed in C.A.No.136/2021 arising out of COP No.192/2011 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the learned Single Judge of this Court directed the Official Liquidator to take possession of the property bearing Sy.No.23/5 situated at Hennagara village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore Rural District by removing whomsoever is in possession, if necessary, by requisitioning the police force vide Annexure-B. - 3 - OSA No. 17 of 2023 2. Brief facts of the appellant's case are as under:- On 09.02.1997, the father of the appellant viz., Late C. Munireddy purchased land bearing Sy.No.23/5 measuring 1 acre 20 guntas situated at Hennagara village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru from one Jyothi Lingappa. Since the date of purchase, the father of the appellant was put in possession and his name was duly mutated in the revenue records. In the mean-while, the partition was held in the family of appellant's father vide partition deed dated 26.09.1981 and all the parties to the partition were placed in separate possession of their respective shares in the property. In the mean-while, litigation ensued. Hence, one C. Nanjunda Reddy filed suit in O.S.No.1009/2006. During the pendency of the said suit, the plaintiff and defendant colluded with each other and intentionally changed the revenue records of the land bearing Sy.No.23/5 into their names and when the appellant came to know of the said fact, he immediately preferred an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore South in R.A.(S)No.103/2002-2003 and the same was allowed on 28.06.2004 and his name was restored in the revenue records in respect of Sy.No.23/5. The suit in O.S.No.1009/2006 was dismissed on 12.06.2014. 3. In the mean-while, the plaintiff in O.S.No.1009/2006 preferred a Revision Petition No.74/2004-2005 being aggrieved by the order passed in R.A.(S)No.103/2002-03 before the Special - 4 - OSA No. 17 of 2023 Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District. Same was dismissed on 13.04.2007. Later, he preferred a writ petition in W.P.Nos.21405- 406/2013(KLR-RES) challenging the orders in R.A.(S)No.103/2003- 04 and Revision petition No.74/2004-05, and by order dated 24.11.2016, the writ petitions came to be withdrawn. 4. In the mean-while, several creditors have filed COP No.192/2011 against M/s. Omkar Estates Private Limited, before this Court. In turn, the learned Single Judge allowed application CA No.136 of 2021 in COP No.192 of 2011. Hence, it is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that while passing the order in Company Petition No.192 of 2011, one Smt. T.S. Banu was not impleaded and hence, the mandatory requirement was also not complied and in view of the impugned order, the appellant is facing threat of dispossession at the hands of respondent No.1-Official Liquidator, thereby, the Constitutional and human rights of the appellant are in jeopardy, in so far as directing respondent No.1- Official Liquidator to take possession of the property in Survey No.23/5 by removing whoever is in its occupation, if necessary, by requisitioning the Police Force. Hence, learned counsel prayed to allow the appeal. 5. Sri K.S. Mahadevan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1-Official Liquidator vehemently contended that the learned Single Judge after considering all aspects of the matter has - 5 - OSA No. 17 of 2023 passed the impugned order which requires no interference. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 6. Heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and learned Official Liquidator for respondent No.1. Perused the material available on record. 7. Admittedly, M/s. Omkar Estates Pvt. Ltd. was ordered to be wound up by an order dated 13.09.2012 in Company Petition No.192 of 2011 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court, and the Official Liquidator attached to this Court was appointed as Official Liquidator for the aforesaid company by virtue of the provisions of Section 449 of the Companies Act, 1956. Hence, it is just and necessary to analyse Section 449 of the Companies Act:- 449. Official Liquidator to be Liquidator- On a winding up order being made in respect of a company, the Official Liquidator shall, by virtue of his office, become the Liquidator of the company. 8. Accordingly, the official Liquidator of the Company proceeded under Rule 160 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, which reads as under:- 160. Official Liquidator's right to summon any person in connection with the investigation. - The Official Liquidator in a winding-up by the Court may summon any person whom he may deem capable of - 6 - OSA No. 17 of 2023 giving information respecting the debts to be proved in liquidation and may require such person to produce any documents in his custody or power relating to such debts and shall tender with the summons such sum as appears to the Official Liquidator sufficient to defray the travelling and other expenses of the person summoned for one day's attendance. Where the person so summoned fails without lawful excuse to attend or produce any documents in compliance with the summons or avoids or evades service, the Official Liquidator may apply to the Court for the issue of a warrant for the apprehension of such person and the production before him of such documents as may be required, or for other appropriate orders. 9. Section 456(2) of the Companies Act, 1956, reads as under:- 456. Custody of company's property .- (1) xxx (2) All the property and effects of the company shall be deemed to be in the custody of the [Tribunal] [ Substituted by Act 11 of 2003, Section 66, for "Court"] as from the date of the order for the winding up of the company. Hence, all the property and assets of the company are deemed to be in the custody of this Court (Official Liquidator) from the date of winding up order. By virtue of Section 457 read with Rules 272 to 274 of The Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, it is the prerogative of the Official Liquidator to deal with the disposal of the properties of the company in liquidation and therefore, by operation of law, the - 7 - OSA No. 17 of 2023 property of the company in liquidation is vested with this Court to be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act. 10. We have perused the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge was of the opinion that the subject agricultural lands were bought in the name of Managing Director of the company, thus, the Company is the owner of the said land and therefore, the question of any other independent person or any widow or legal heirs of the deceased Managing Director would not succeed in the property. Admittedly, as per the letter dated 18.05.2013, addressed by the Managing Director to the Official Liquidator of this Court, it has been clearly stated that the property belongs to the Company, as seven Co-directors were the signatories to the said letter. The learned Single Judge also opined that so-called possession of the legal representatives of the deceased Managing Director was nothing more than impermissible occupation of the property of the Company, as same would be vested in the Official Liquidator. It is also recorded that, neither the counsel nor the respondents i.e., Smt. T.S. Banu have participated in the proceedings, nor any material worth mentioning has been placed on record to show any prima-facie right to continue in the occupation of the subject property. Therefore, learned Single Judge directed the respondent Smt. T.S. Banu to deliver the subject property to the custody of the Official Liquidator of this office. - 8 - OSA No. 17 of 2023 11. In the instant appeal, the appellant has taken contention that he is the owner of the property in question, on the ground that the appellant's father by name C. Munireddy had purchased the land bearing Sy.No.23/5 measuring 1 acre 20 guntas situated at Hennagara village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru and the name of father of the appellant was entered in the revenue records. Later, in the year 2012, Company petition was filed and company was wound up and an Official Liquidator was appointed. 12. The appellant has relied upon the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge dated 13.09.2012 in COP No. 192/2011, order of the learned Single Judge in C.A.No.136/2021 in COP. No.192/2011 dated 05.04.2023, copy of the sale deed dated 09.02.1977, copy of judgment in R.A.(s) 103/2002-03 dated 28.06.2004, order passed by Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District in R.P.No.74/2004-05, order of learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.21405-406/2013 disposed of on 24.11.2016, judgment passed in O.S.No.1009/2006 dated 12.06.2014 and Compromise Decree passed in O.S.No.742/2006. 13. In the instant appeal, the appellant has not furnished any revenue documents to show the name of the appellant in the revenue records and that khata has been transferred in his name. The appellant has also not furnished the RTC extract, encumbrance certificate, tax paid receipt to substantiate that he is the owner and he is in possession of the property bearing Sy.No.23/5. On the other - 9 - OSA No. 17 of 2023 hand, the official liquidator has clearly made out the case that the property in question was purchased in the name of the Managing Director of the Company, thus, the property stands in the name of the company. Now, the Company is wound up and the Official Liquidator has to take possession of the property. 14. The title of the appellant is under cloud, thus, he has to seek declaration. Under such circumstances, he must seek declaration in view of the ratio laid down in the case of Smt. Anathulla Sudhakar Vs. P. Buchireddy reported in (2008) 5 SCC 594. 15. In similar matters, learned Single Judge in CoA. No.237/2024 c/w. 234/2024 in CoP.No.192/2011 filed by respondent No.1 against Smt. T.S. Banu, the learned Single Judge by order dated 14.11.2024 allowed the company applications and directed Smt. T.S. Banu to convey sale deed/release deed in respect of land bearing Sy.No.110/3 in the name of Official Liquidator of M/s. Omkar Estates Private Limited(in Liquidation) and directed the Official Liquidator to file a report after conveying the sale deed/release deed. Whereas, the present dispute is in respect of property bearing Sy.No.23/5 of Hennagara village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru. Thus, learned Single Judge has passed similar orders in respect of lands held by the Company in liquidation and directed the - 10 - OSA No. 17 of 2023 Official Liquidator of this Court to take possession of all the properties held by the company. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find no merit in the contentions of the appellant. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. In view of the disposal of the appeal, pending interlocutory applications, if any, stands disposed off. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE *mn/-