- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:11090 CA No. 13 of 2024 In CA No.906 of 2007 In COP No.22 of 1998 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ COMPANY APPLICATION NO. 13 OF 2024 IN COMPANY APPLICATION NO. 906 OF 2007 IN COMPANY PETITION NO. 22 OF 1998 BETWEEN: SHRI D K SUBRAMANIAN S/O KRISHNA IYER, AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS, NO. 3/58, SHRINAGAR APARTMENTS, 4TH MAIN, 18TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU 560055. …APPLICANT (BY SRI. SUMANA NAGANAND.,ADVOCATE) AND: THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR OF M/S KEONICS PENTA SEMI CONDUCTORS, LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) ATTACHED TO THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA 26-27, 12TH FLOOR, RAHEJA TOWERS, M.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. JAGADEESH GOUD PATIL ., ADVOCATE FOR O.L) THIS COMPANY APPLICATION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 65 OF THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 READ WITH RULE 9 OF THE COMPANIES (COURT) RULES, 1959 PRAYING TO PERMIT THE APPLICANT (RESPONDENT NO.2 IN C.A.NO. 906/2007) TO LEAD THE Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:11090 CA No. 13 of 2024 In CA No.906 of 2007 In COP No.22 of 1998 SECONDARY EVIDENCE ON HIS BEHALF IN C.A.NO. 906/2007 AND TO CONSEQUENLTY MARK THE DOCUMENTS DETAILED IN THE LIST ANNEXED HERETO IN EVIDENCE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS COMPANY APPLICATION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ ORAL ORDER 1. CA No.13/2024 has been filed seeking for the following reliefs: Pleased to permit the Applicant (Respondent No.2 in C.A.No.906/2007) to lead the secondary evidence on his behalf in C.A.No.906/2007 and to consequently mark the documents detailed in the list annexed hereto in evidence, in the interest f justice and equity. 2. CA No.13/2024 has been filed by respondent no.2 to lead secondary evidence in respect of four documents namely the Board Resolution dated 31.08.1996 of the company in liquidation appointing respondent no.2 as a director, copy of the order dated 17.08.2006 passed by this Court in CA No.1182/2002 in COP No.22/1998, copy of the letter dated 21.12.2002 issued by the company in liquidation indicating that the term of respondent no.2 has expired and he ceased to be a director from the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:11090 CA No. 13 of 2024 In CA No.906 of 2007 In COP No.22 of 1998 relevant date and a copy of the letter dated 13.12.2002 addressed by respondent no.2 to the official liquidator informing that he has left the company in liquidation long ago. 3. The submission of learned counsel for respondent no.2 is that respondent no.2 not being the custodian of these documents, and the documents No.1 and 3 relating to the company in liquidation would be maintained by the company in liquidation and as such, the official liquidator ought to be in possession thereof. 4. Insofar as document No 4 is concerned, he submits that there is a letter addressed by respondent no.2 to the official liquidator, and as such, the original of the said letter should be available with the official liquidator. It is the office copy that respondent no.2 proposes to mark. 5. Insofar as the order dated 17.8.2006 in CA No.1182/2002, there being no objection on the part of the official liquidators, the same could always be marked. 6. The submission of learned counsel for the official liquidator is that even according to the respondent, the acknowledgment has been misplaced as contended in - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:11090 CA No. 13 of 2024 In CA No.906 of 2007 In COP No.22 of 1998 Para 7 of the affidavit in support of the above application and as such, the said letter dated 13.12.2002 cannot be permitted to be marked as secondary evidence. 7. I am afraid that the said contention would not help insofar as the said letter dated 13.12.2002 is concerned inasmuch as what has been misplaced is the acknowledgement of respondent no.2 having served the letter dated 13.12.2002 on the official liquidator. The said letter being addressed to the official liquidator is required to be in the file of the official liquidator. Be that as it may, the leading of secondary evidence does not substitute proof of the contents of the documents. The proof of the contents of documents would always have to be established by respondent no.2. By permitting the leading of secondary evidence, this Court would only permit the concerned witness to mark photocopies of the document when no originals are available. Such permission does not take away the satisfactory requirements under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and now the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. It would be for respondent no.2 to satisfy all requirements thereof for - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:11090 CA No. 13 of 2024 In CA No.906 of 2007 In COP No.22 of 1998 the said documents to be considered. In that view of the matter, I pass the following: ORDER i) CA No.13/2024 is allowed. ii) Respondent no.2 is permitted to mark the photocopies of the aforesaid four documents in evidence of respondent no.2. iii) The submission of learned counsel for respondent No.2 that the said documents would be marked on the very next date on which the matter is listed, without seeking for any adjournment, is placed on record. If any adjournment is sought for, the benefit of the above order will be automatically rescinded. SD/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE PRS List No.: Sl No.: