- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5935 CA No. 360 of 2017 IN COP No.8 of 1965 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. 360 OF 2017 IN COMPANY PETITION NO.8 OF 1965 BETWEEN: VISH ( V M VISHNU ) 912 ROSE / MERTYLE LANE, RICHMOND TOWN, BANGALORE -25 …APPLICANT (BY SRI. VISH (V.M.VISHNU), PARTY-IN-PERSON) AND: LALITHA U. AND OTHERS IN MFA 2544/00 (LAC 83/87) POOJA APARTMENTS R/O. BANGALORE …RESPONDENT (BY SMT.KRUTHIKA RAGHAVAN, OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR) THIS COMPANY APPLICATION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 434(1)(C) OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO RELINQUISH ALL RIGHTS AND SHARES CLAIMED BY THEM IN COMPANY PETITION 8/1965, IN FAVOUR OF THE APPLICANT VISH AND EVICT FROM THE COMPANY AND ETC. THIS COMPANY APPLICATION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5935 CA No. 360 of 2017 IN COP No.8 of 1965 ORAL ORDER 1. C.A.No.360/2017 has been filed seeking for the following reliefs: a. “The respondents to relinquish all rights and shares claimed by them in Company Petition 8/1965, in favour of the applicant VISH and evict from the company. b. The respondent syndicate to declare all moveable and immoveable assets held by them to be liquidated to settle the liability to the company and the applicant. c. Pay damages to the total cost of assets of the Mahalakshmi Woollen and Silk Mills Company Limited (respondent in Company Petition 8/1965) and to the applicant in accordance with law, as stated above. (The entire respondent syndicate is to pay to costs as above individually)” 2. The cause title reads as under: “BETWEEN: VISH ( V M VISHNU ) 912 ROSE / MERTYLE LANE, RICHMOND TOWN, BANGALORE -25 …APPLICANT AND: LALITHA U. AND OTHERS IN MFA 2544/00 (LAC 83/87) POOJA APARTMENTS R/O. BANGALORE - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5935 CA No. 360 of 2017 IN COP No.8 of 1965 …RESPONDENT” 3. From the above cause title, it is seen that the applicant has filed the above application against M/s.Lalitha U. and others, who is stated to be the first appellant in MFA.No.2544/2000 arising out of LAC No.83/1987. The application is stated to be filed under Chapter XVIII of the Indian Litigation Practice. 4. By way of the above application, the applicant is seeking for the respondents to relinquish all the rights and shares claimed by them in Company Petition No.8/1965 in favour of the applicant and for the respondents to declare all the movable and immovable assets held by them to be liquidated to settle the liability of Company and the applicant to pay damages to the total cost of assets of the Mahalakshmi Woollen and Silk Mills Company Limited, which is the Company which has been dissolved in pursuance of the order passed in Company Petition No.8/1965 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5935 CA No. 360 of 2017 IN COP No.8 of 1965 5. On enquiry with the petitioner as to whether he would intend to obtain legal advice since the filing of the application is apparently ex-facie not in accordance with the applicable procedure. 6. He submits that he does not wish to do so, he is perfectly competent to prosecute the petition. 7. The present application has been pending from the year 2017 for compliance with the office objections. Though the name of the counsel for the official liquidator has been shown, the official liquidator or the Company in dissolution is not a party to these proceedings. 8. In that view of the matter, the present proceedings cannot be proceeded with. 9. A perusal of the order sheet indicates that on 10.10.2017, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had directed the petitioner to file the cause title of the Company application showing his name and complete - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5935 CA No. 360 of 2017 IN COP No.8 of 1965 address as also against whom he wants the reliefs in the present Company application. It is also observed that prima-facie, the case appears to be a case of limited Company being wound up and dissolved. In that background, thus had called upon the official liquidator to verify, if the name of the petitioner or his father figured in the list of contributors/shareholders. 10. The matter was adjourned from time to time for compliance of the office objections. 11. On 06.02.2018, a Coordinate Bench of this Court observing that several office objections have not been complied with, had directed the petitioner, party-in-person to comply with the same. 12. It is then contended by the party-in-person that since an earlier order had been passed, the office objections have been deemed to be dispensed with, which was rejected by the said Coordinate Bench. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5935 CA No. 360 of 2017 IN COP No.8 of 1965 13. Again on 28.02.2018, this Court granted six weeks’ time to the petitioner party-in-person to comply with the office objections. Even as on date, the office objections have not been complied even cause title is not present in the application which has been filed. 14. In that view of the matter, I am afraid the matter cannot be taken up, since despite the party-in- person being given one more opportunity as to whether he would rectify the same, he submits that there is nothing to be rectified. 15. In that view of the matter, the application in C.A.No.360/2017 is dismissed for non-prosecution. SD/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE KTY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16