logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2025 Kar HC 1917 print Preview print Next print
Court : High Court of Karnataka
Case No : Company Application No. 273 of 2025 In Company Application No. 255 of 1999 in Company Petition No. 15 of 1994
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE M. JYOTI
Parties : T.MD. Nowman Versus Official Liquidator of M/s. N.P. Confectioneryu Limited (In Liqn) Bengaluru
Appearing Advocates : For the Appellant: R.K. Nagesh, K.R. Haradwaj, Advocates. For the Respondent: Jagadeesh Goud Patil, Advocate.
Date of Judgment : 09-12-2025
Head Note :-
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 478 – Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 – Rules 6 & 7 – Bail Application – Release of Accused No.3 – Non-Bailable Warrant – Production Before Court – Satisfaction of Court – Held, upon perusal of affidavit and application, sufficient grounds made out for grant of bail – Court permits release of Accused No.3 on conditions.

Court Held – Application allowed – Accused No.3/Respondent No.3 released on bail (Company Application disposed of) – Personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- directed to be executed before Registrar Judicial – Accused to appear on all hearing dates – Objections of Official Liquidator and Additional Government Advocate noted but not accepted.

[Paras 2, 3, 5, 6]

Keywords: BNSS Section 478 – Bail – Non-Bailable Warrant – Company Petition – Liquidation Proceedings – Personal Bond – Production Before Court
Summary :-
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- Section 478 of BNSS
- rules 6 and 7 of companies (court) rules 1959

2. Catch Words:
- bail
- non‑bailable warrant
- personal bond

3. Summary:
The applicant filed an application under Section 478 of BNSS read with Rules 6 and 7 of the Companies (Court) Rules 1959 seeking bail for accused No. 3, who had been produced before the court after a non‑bailable warrant. Counsel for the applicant argued for release, while the Official Liquidator and Additional Government Advocate opposed it. The court examined the application and supporting affidavit. Satisfied with the affidavit’s reasons, the court granted bail, imposing a condition that the accused appear at all hearings and execute a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000. Consequently, the pending application (C.A.No.273/2025) was disposed of.

4. Conclusion:
Petition Allowed
Judgment :-

(Prayer: This company application is filed under Section 478 of BNSS r/w rules 6 and 7 of companies (court) rules 1959 praying this Honourable court to grant bail and to release the applicant in the interest of justice.)

Oral Order:

1. Sri. Nagesh R.K. counsel for Sri. Bhardwaj K.R., counsel for the applicant, Additional Government Advocate appeared in person and Sri. Jagadeesh Goud Patil, counsel for Official Liquidator appeared through video conferencing.

2. Counsel for the applicant submits that this Court had issued Non-Bailable Warrant against accused No.3 and accused No.3 has been produced before this Court through Sub-Inspector, J.C.Nagar Police Station. A bail application is filed seeking grant of bail and release of respondent No.3 on bail. Counsel therefore submits that the bail application may be allowed and respondent No.3 may be released on bail.

3. Counsel on behalf of Official Liquidator and Additional Government Advocate objected to release respondent No.3 on bail.

4. The submission made by the respective counsel is noted with care.

5. The Application filed by the applicant is taken on record. Perused the application and the affidavit with utmost care.

6. Being satisfied with the reasons shown in the affidavit, the application is allowed and accused No.3 / respondent No.3 is released on bail subject to condition that he shall appear before the Court on all the dates of hearing and shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) before the Registrar Judicial, High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru.

7. Accordingly C.A.No.273/2025 is disposed of.
 
  CDJLawJournal