- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010849962025 NC: 2026:KHC:51245 CA No. 390 of 2025 In CA No. 117 of 2023 In COP no.214 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M COMPANY APPLICATION NO. 390 OF 2025 IN COMPANYA APPLICATION NO. 117 OF 2023 IN COMPANY PETITION NO.214 OF 2012 BETWEEN: MR. SIDDHESH VISHNU RANE, S/O. SHRI VISHNU RAMCHANDRA RANE, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, B/602, TAHSHILA, SIDDHESHWAR GARDEN, DHOKALI NAKA, KOLSHET GARDEN, THANE WEST, MAHARASTRA-400607. …APPLICANT (BY SRI. SUSHANTH BELVET, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. CHINTAN CHINNAPPA M.,ADVOCATE) AND: OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR OF KINGFISHER AIRLINES PVT. LTD., HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, CORPORATE BHAVAN, NO.26-27, 12TH FLOOR, RAHEJA TOWERS, MG ROAD, BENGALURU-560001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. JAGADEESHGOUD PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR OL) Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010849962025 NC: 2026:KHC:51245 CA No. 390 of 2025 In CA No. 117 of 2023 In COP no.214 of 2012 THIS COMPANY APPLICATION IS FILED UNDER RULE 9 OF COMPANIES COURT RULES, 1959. THIS COMPANY APPLICATION IS LISTED FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Sri. Sushanth Belvent, counsel for Sri. Chintan Chinnappa M., for the applicant, and Sri. Jagadeeshgoud Patil, counsel for the Official Liquidator, appeared in person. The applicant's counsel states that this Court, in its order dated 04.12.2025, dismissed Company Application No.117/2023 due to non-compliance with the office objection. Consequently, an application in C.A.No.390/2025 has been filed to recall that order. The reasons are detailed in the memorandum of facts. It is requested that the Court consider these reasons, allow the application, and set aside the dismissal order dated 04.12.2025. The counsel for the Official Liquidator argues that the Court has already dismissed application C.A.No.117/2023, and attempting to recall that order via another application is not - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010849962025 NC: 2026:KHC:51245 CA No. 390 of 2025 In CA No. 117 of 2023 In COP no.214 of 2012 permissible. Instead, the proper course of action would be to file an appeal through the OSA. After carefully reviewing the arguments and examining the documents, it is evident from the records that, despite being given adequate time, the office's objections in C.A.No.117/2023 were not addressed. As a result, the Court dismissed the application due to non-compliance with the office objection. Consequently, since the Court has dismissed the application, filing another application to recall this order is not permissible. Accordingly, C.A.No.390/2025 is dismissed. Sd/- (JYOTI M) JUDGE SS List No.:1 Sl No.:9