- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38707 WP No. 27337 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 27337 OF 2025 (CS-RES) BETWEEN: 1. M/S. BREMELS RUBBER INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.12, AUSTEN INFRASTRUCTURE LTD., SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE, PHALIMAR, NANDIKURU VILLAGE, PADUBIDRE POST,KAPU TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT 574 111 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SRI. NISCHITH B SHETTY. 2. SRI. NISCHITH B SHETTY S/O BHASKAR SHETTY AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT NO.115/A, 9TH MAIN ROAD, RMV EXTENSION, SADASHIVANAGAR, BENGALURU-560080. 3. SRI. ADITH B SHETTY S/O BHASKAR SHETTY AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT NO.115/A, 9TH MAIN ROAD, RMV EXTENSION, SADASHIVANAGAR, BENGALURU 560080 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. MADHUKAR M.D., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38707 WP No. 27337 of 2025 AND: 1. JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES MYSURU DIVISION, NEW SAYYAJI RAO ROAD, MYSORE-570024 2. SOUTH CANARA DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LTD., NO.113, MANGALORE-575003 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. YOGESH D. NAIK, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; SRI. RAKSHITH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 04.09.2025 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN DISPUTE NO. JRM/DDS/72/2022-23 (ANNEXURE-A), IN SO FAR AS IT CLOSES THE EVIDENCE OF THE PETITIONERS AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioners have challenged an order dated 04.09.2025 passed by the respondent No.1 in dispute No.JRM/DDS/72/2022-23. They have also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to set aside the order dated 04.09.2025 in so far it directs the petitioner to produce - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38707 WP No. 27337 of 2025 documents mentioned in the interlocutory application filed by the respondent No.2 and consequently to dismiss the said application. 2. The sum and substance of the case of the petitioners is that the respondent No.2 had initiated proceedings before the respondent No.1 under Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (henceforth referred to as 'Act, 1959' for short). The respondent No.2 filed an application to direct the petitioners to produce certain documents. 3. The said application was not considered in view of the fact that the petitioners had failed to tender themselves for cross-examination. The petitioners are therefore before this Court challenging the order closing the cross-examination of petitioners and posting the case for arguments. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that due to inadvertence, the petitioners could not be present before the respondent No.1. However, he undertakes that the petitioners would present themselves for cross-examination - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38707 WP No. 27337 of 2025 before the respondent No.1 on the next date of hearing i.e., on 29.09.2025. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents though opposed against showing any indulgence to the petitioners submitted that if the petitioners present themselves before the respondent No.1 on 29.09.2025, he would not have any objection to undo the impugned order dated 04.09.2025 passed by the respondent No.1. He also submits that the respondent No.2 should be reserved liberty to pursue the application filed by it to summon documents from the petitioners. 6. In view of the above, this writ petition stands disposed off on the following terms: (i) The order dated 04.09.2025 passed by the respondent No.1 in dispute No.JRM/DDS/72/2022- 23 is set aside. (ii) The petitioners shall appear before the respondent No.1 on 29.09.2025 and subject themselves to cross-examination. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38707 WP No. 27337 of 2025 (iii) The application filed by the respondent No.2 shall be considered by the respondent No.1 in accordance with law. (iv) The respondent No.1 is directed to dispose off the proceedings as expeditiously as possible at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE HJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18