- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5568 CA No. 11 of 2025 A/W CA NO. 15 of 2025 A/W CA NO. 222 of 2025 In COP No. 199 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ COMPANY APPLICATION NO. 11 OF 2025 A/W COMPANY APPLICATION NO. 15 OF 2025 A/W COMPANY APPLICATION NO. 222 OF 2025 IN COMPANY PETITION NO. 199 OF 2010 IN CA NO. 11/2025 BETWEEN: D JAYARAMI REDDY S/O. LATE SHIVASHRANKARA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. J-156, HMT COLONY, SECTOR-1, JALAHALLI, BANGALORE-13. …APPLICANT (BY SMT. RASHMI K., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SUBRAMANYA BHAT M.,ADVOCATE) AND: THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR, M/S MADANAPALLE SPINNING MILLS LIMITED, ATTACHED TO THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, 26-27, 12TH FLOOR, RAHEJA TOWERS, MG ROAD, BANGALORE-01. …RESPONDENT Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5568 CA No. 11 of 2025 A/W CA NO. 15 of 2025 A/W CA NO. 222 of 2025 In COP No. 199 of 2010 (BY SRI. SHRISHAIL NAVALGUND., FOR O.L) THIS COMPANY APPLICATION IS FILED UNDER RULE 6 AND 9 OF THE COMPANIES COURT RULES, 1959. PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO PAY A SUM OF RS. 6,36,133/- (RUPEES SIX LAKHS THIRTY SIX THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY THREE ONLY), WHICH IS ADMITTED AS SECURED CLAIM, TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. IN CA NO. 15/2025 BETWEEN: D JAYARAMI REDDY S/O. LATE SHIVASHRANKARA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. J-156, HMT COLONY, SECTOR-1, JALAHALLI, BANGALORE-13. …APPLICANT (BY SMT. RASHMI K., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SUBRAMANYA BHAT M.,ADVOCATE) AND: THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR, M/S MADANAPALLE SPINNING MILLS LIMITED, ATTACHED TO THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, 26-27, 12TH FLOOR, RAHEJA TOWERS, MG ROAD, BANGALORE-01. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SHRISHAIL NAVALGUND., FOR O.L) THIS COMPANY APPLICATION IS FILED UNDER RULE 6 AND 9 OF THE COMPANIES COURT RULES, 1959. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE PORTION OF THE NOTICE OF REJECTION OF THE CLAIM BEARING NO. OLB/COP NO.199/2010/SEC-VIII/CLAIM NO.324/7655/2023 DATED 24.7.2023, TO THE EXTENT OF REJECTING THE CLAIM OF RS.10,22,667/- WITH A FURTHER DIRECTION TO THE RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE CLAIM OF THE APPLICANT FOR PAYMENT OF RS. 1,72,500/- TOWARDS INTEREST @ 7% ON DELAYED PAYMENT OF EL ENCASHMENT AND RS.3,42,717/- TOWARDS DELAYED SETTLEMENT OF GRATUITY @10% INTEREST, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5568 CA No. 11 of 2025 A/W CA NO. 15 of 2025 A/W CA NO. 222 of 2025 In COP No. 199 of 2010 BOTH PUT TOGETHER A SUM OF RS.5,15,217/- ALONG WITH 10% INTEREST FROM THE DATE ON WHICH THE SAME BECAME DUE TILL THE DATE OF ACTUAL PAYMENT, TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. IN CA NO. 222/2025 BETWEEN: THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR OF M/S MADANAPALLE SPINNING MILLS LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) ATTACHED TO HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, CORPORATE BHAVAN, NO. 26-27, 12TH FLOOR, RAHEJA TOWERS, M G ROAD, BENGALURU 560 001. …APPLICANT (BY SRI. SHRISHAIL NAVALGUND.,ADVOCATE) AND: MR.D. JAYARAMI REDDY S/O LATE SHIVASHANKARA REDDY, RESIDING AT NO. J-156, HMT COLONY, SECTOR-1, JALAHALLI, BENGALURU 560 013. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SUBRAMANYA BHAT .,ADVOCATE) THIS COMPANY APPLICATION IS FILED UNDER RULE 176 R/W RULE 9 OF THE COMPANIES (COURT) RULES 1959 PRAYING TO A) PERMIT THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR TO WITHDRAW THE EARLIER FORM NO.69, DATED 24.07.2023 ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE C ISSUED TO THE RESPONDENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 176 READ WITH RULE 9 OF THE COMPANIES (COURT) RULES, 1956 AND ETC. THESE COMPANY APPLICATIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5568 CA No. 11 of 2025 A/W CA NO. 15 of 2025 A/W CA NO. 222 of 2025 In COP No. 199 of 2010 ORAL ORDER 1. Initially, CA No.11/2025 had been filed, seeking for the following: Direct the Respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 6,36,133/- (Rupees Six Lakhs thirty six thousand one hundred and thirty three only), which is admitted as secured claim, to meet the ends of justice. 2. CA No.15/2025 has been filed seeking for the following reliefs; Set aside the portion of the notice of rejection of the claim bearing No. OLB/Cop No.199/2010/Sec- VIII/Claim No.324/7655/2023 dated 24.7.2023, to the extent of rejecting the claim of Rs.10,22,667/- with a further direction to the Respondent to consider the claim of the Applicant for payment of Rs. 1,72,500/- towards interest @ 7% on delayed payment of EL encashment and Rs.3,42,717/- towards delayed settlement of gratuity @10% interest, both put together a sum of Rs.5,15,217/- along with 10% interest from the date on which the same became due till the date of actual payment, to meet the ends of justice. 3. CA No.222/2025 has been filed seeking for the following reliefs; a. Permit the Official Liquidator to withdraw the earlier Form No.69, dated 24.07.2023 enclosed as Annexure-C issued to the Respondent, in accordance with Rule 76 read with Rule 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1956: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5568 CA No. 11 of 2025 A/W CA NO. 15 of 2025 A/W CA NO. 222 of 2025 In COP No. 199 of 2010 b. Approve the draft of revised Form No.69 enclosed as Annexure-D and permit the Official Liquidator to issue the same to the Respondent reflecting the correct classification of the claim as “Preferential”; c. Any other orders/directions which this Hon’ble Court may be deem fit and proper may kindly be passed. 4. The request of the applicant was for release of the amounts stated to be due to the applicant. Subsequently, CA No.15/2025 was filed by the very same applicant, challenging the rejection of the claim made to CA No.11/2025. Since orders have already been passed in CA No.11/2025, the claim under CA No.11/2025 does not survive for consideration. 5. In CA No.15/2025, the applicant contended that the rejection of the claim of the applicant/petitioner is not proper, inasmuch as the applicant is a workman and not an employee, since he satisfies the requirement of section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is contended that in view of the applicant being a workman, the workman would - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5568 CA No. 11 of 2025 A/W CA NO. 15 of 2025 A/W CA NO. 222 of 2025 In COP No. 199 of 2010 be entitled for gratuity and interest on gratuity as also for earned leave encashment, which a workman was entitled to. 6. In the meanwhile, CA No.222/2025 came to be filed by the official liquidator, seeking for revising the admitted amounts, inasmuch as the official liquidator contending that the applicant being an employee, the calculation which has been made earlier was as a workman denying the claim of the applicant. The methodology of calculation was improper and in that background, CA No.222/2025 was filed to correct the mistake which had occurred in the calculation. 7. Submission of Ms.Rashmi K., learned counsel for the applicant in CA No.11/2025, CA No.15/2025 and respondent in CA No.222/2025, is that the applicant is a workman, he did not exercise any supervisory power, where the applicant did not also exercise any power to discipline, appoint or remove any workman - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5568 CA No. 11 of 2025 A/W CA NO. 15 of 2025 A/W CA NO. 222 of 2025 In COP No. 199 of 2010 in the organization. Therefore, he is not an employee, but a workman in the company under liquidation. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused papers. 9. Though the contentions have been raised that the applicant is not an employee, but he is a workman that there are no particular document which is placed on record to indicate the same. 10. What has only been produced is the first appointment letter indicating that the applicant had been appointed on 29.5.1983 as Accounts Assistant and on 10.10.2007 when he resigned. He had termed himself as manager (accounts) and called upon the management of the company to settle his dues. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5568 CA No. 11 of 2025 A/W CA NO. 15 of 2025 A/W CA NO. 222 of 2025 In COP No. 199 of 2010 11. It is in that background that the affidavit in proof of that filed by the applicant also identified himself as manager (accounts) and in that background, that the calculation was made. Initially, on the basis of the amounts stated in the affidavit and subsequently has sought to be revised by filing CA No.222/2025. From the documents which have been produced by the applicant himself, it is clear that the applicant is a manager (accounts) and being a manager, he would come within the ambit of proviso to Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The designation being that of a manager not being in dispute. Nothing is produced to rebut the presumption insofar as the managerial capacity of the applicant is concerned. 12. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the rejection made by the official liquidator is proper. The calculation which has been - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5568 CA No. 11 of 2025 A/W CA NO. 15 of 2025 A/W CA NO. 222 of 2025 In COP No. 199 of 2010 made in CA No.222/2025 i.e., also being proper, the application CA No.15/2025 would be required to be dismissed and the application in CA No.222/2025 would be required to be allowed. As such, I pass the following: ORDER i) CA No.11/2025 is dismissed as infructuous. ii) CA No.15/2025 is dismissed. iii) CA No.222/2025 is allowed. iv) The official liquidator is directed to disburse the amounts which will be due to the applicant as expeditiously as possible. SD/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE PRS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25