Official Liquidator of M/S Karnataka Infrastructures Private Limited in Liquidation v. Sri Vasanth K Binal

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 583 OF 2026 BETWEEN:

OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR OF M/S KARNATAKA INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION), ATTACHED TO HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, "CORPORATE BHAVAN", NO.26-27, 12TH FLOOR, RAHEJA TOWERS, M.G.ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. REPRESENTED BY SRI PRASHANT BALIYAN. …PETITIONER (BY MS. KRUTIKA RAGHAVAN, ADVOCATE) AND:

SRI. VASANTH K BINAL, EX-DIRECTOR OF M/S.KARNATAKA INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION), KALYAN KUTEER, KHUBA PLOT, STATION ROAD, GULBARGA - 585 101. …RESPONDENT

THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC., PRAYING TO (1) ALLOW THE INSTANT CIVIL REVISION PETITION AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGEND ORDER DATED 9.01.2026 PASSED

Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

BY THE V ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, IN IA NO.1 IN EXECUTION PETITION NO.580/2023.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the order passed on IA No.1 in Ex.No.580/2023 dated 09.01.2026 by the V Additional City Civil Court, Bengaluru, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶2The facts of the case are that this petition is filed by the Official Liquidator, i.e., M/s.Karnataka Infrastructure Private Limited, aggrieved by the order dated 09.01.2026, passed in Ex.P.No.580/2023. The decree was passed on 06.07.2006 in Company Application No.1268/1992 under Section 543(1) of the Companies Act in the course of winding up proceedings of M/s. Karnataka Infrastructure Private Limited in Company Petition No.11/1986.

¶3The execution petition is filed by the decree holder under Order 21 Rule 11 of the CPC to execute the order dated

06.07.2006 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Company Application No.1268/1992. In the said execution, IA No.1 came to be filed by Judgment debtor No.14 under Section 47 of the CPC, R/w article 136 of the Limitation Act, seeking an order to reject the execution petition, as it is barred by limitation. That came to be allowed by the order impugned. In this petition, while allowing the application, the execution Court has observed that the decree holder filed this petition in view of Section 364 of the Companies Act, 1956, contending that the order of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court may be enforced in the same manner as decree made by the Civil Court in suit pending with therein.

¶4The Court observed that under Article 136 of the Limitation Act, the period of limitation for execution of any decree or order of any Civil Court is 12 years, when the decree or order become enforceable. The order in Company Application No.1268/1992 in Company Petition No.11/1986 was passed on

06.07.2006. The present petition is filed on 23.02.2023. Since the present petition is not filed within the 12 years from the date of the order, which became enforceable, the petition is

barred by limitation. In the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for judgment Debtor No.14, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and High Court of Madras held that the period of limitation cannot be condoned in the execution proceedings.

¶5The learned counsel representing the Official Liquidator submits that the Court has failed to consider the submissions that are made on behalf of the petitioner. It is submitted that the company is under liquidation and the Official Liquidator filed an application seeking for execution of the same, the Court ought to have considered the pending proceedings and the orders that were passed. Therefore, the order impugned needs to be set aside.

¶6Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court has perused the order. Wherein the Court has rightly held that the period of limitation cannot be condoned in the execution proceedings from the date of the decree, within 12 years they have to file the execution proceedings. Admittedly, in this case, the order is passed on 06.07.2006 and the execution is filed in the year 2023. The executing Court has

rightly passed the impugned order. There are no reasons to interfere. Hence, this Court is passing the following: ORDER i. Accordingly, the CRP is dismissed. ii. All Pending IAs in this petition shall stand closed.

SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE

BH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10 *MR