AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

    KAPIL R SHIRALKAR v. OFFICE OF THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR OF

    - 1 -

    CA No. 388/2022 IN COP NO.214/2012

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

    DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023

    BEFORE

    THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT CA NO.388/2022

    IN

    COP NO.214/2012

    BETWEEN:

    KAPIL R SHIRALKAR,

    S/O LATE RAMAKANT SHIRALKAR,

    AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,

    H NO.17,18,19, 1 ST LEFT CROSS,

    OM NAGAR, OLD P B ROAD, SHAHPUR,

    BELAGAVI - 590 003.

    …APPLICANT

    (BY SRI. PRITHVI RAJ B N.,ADVOCATE)

    AND:

    OFFICE OF THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR OF

    M/S KINGFISHER AIRLINES LIMITED

    (IN LIQUIDATION)

    ATTACHED TO HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

    CORPIORATE BHAVAN, NO. 26-27,

    12THFLOOR, RAHEJA TOWERS, M G ROAD,

    BENGALURU - 560 001.

    …RESPONDENT

    (BY SRI.K S MAHADEVAN, ADVOCATE FOR OL)

    THIS APPLICATION IS FILED UNDER RULE 177 OF THE

    COMPANY COURT RULES 1959 READ WITH SECTION 5 OF THE

    LIMITATION ACT, PRAYING TO CONDONE THE DELAY OF 935

    DAYS IN PREFERRING HIS CLAIM AT ANNEXURE-A BEFORE THE RESPONDENT & ETC.,

    - 2 -

    THIS APPLICATION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS

    DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

    ORDER

    The subject matter of this Application is substantially similar to the one in C.A.No.367/2022 in Co.P.No.214/2012 between SANTOSH KUMAR vs. KINGFISHER AIRLINES LTD., disposed off on 11.01.2023 wherein at paragraph 2 it is observed as under:

    "2. It is stated at the Bar that ordinarily, application for condoning delay are favorably considered by the Company Courts subject to all just exceptions into which the argued case of the applicant does not fit. More prejudice would be caused than otherwise, should delay be not condoned more particularly when the claimant happens to be the workman who is otherwise placed in a protective condition under Section 529 of the Companies Act, 1956 on pari passu basis."

    2. Learned counsel for the Applicant submits and this Court agrees with that once relief is granted to a litigant, the same needs to be extended to other similarly circumstanced litigants in the absence of any repugnant factors warranting an otherwise decision. This is consistent with the doctrine of equality & parity of treatment.

    - 3 -

    3. The Applicant has offered a plausible explanation for the delay in submitting his claim petition to the Official Liquidator. If that delay is not condoned in the circumstances of the case, a great injustice would be caused to the applicant. Conversely, if delay is condoned, the same would not add to the merits of the claim and thus no prejudice would be caused to anyone. This apart, it is not that if the claim Petition was filed in time, it would have been disposed off. Learned counsel appearing for the Official Liquidator submits that till date, the adjudication of the claims of others has also not taken place.

    In view of the above, this Application succeeds. The delay of 935 days in filing the claim petition is condoned. The Official Liquidator is directed to consider the claim petition on merits and in accordance with law.

    Sd/-

    JUDGE

    Bsv

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    KAPIL R SHIRALKAR v. OFFICE OF THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR OF
    (Feb 1, 2023)