Karnataka High Court
CA/264/2018 of VASANTH RAO N HULI Vs MAHARASHTRA APEX CORPORATION LTD on 1 October 2026
CNR: KAHC010457012018 NC: 2026:KHC:54977 CA No. 264 of 2018 In COP No.37 of 2003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M COMPANY APPLICATION NO. 264 OF 2018 IN COMPANY PETITION NO.37 OF 2003 BETWEEN: VASANTH
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M
COMPANY APPLICATION NO. 264 OF 2018
IN
COMPANY PETITION NO.37 OF 2003
BETWEEN:
VASANTH RAO N HULI
S/O NARAYAN RAO HULI
AGED 85 YEARS
OCCUPATION: RETIRED CAO
R/AT KANAKAGERI BUILDING
6TH CROSS, MALAMADDI
DHARWAD
…APPLICANT
(BY SRI. V.PADMANABHA KEDILAYA, ADVOCATE - ABSENT)
AND:
MAHARASHTRA APEX CORPORATION LTD.,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
SYNDICATE HOUSE, UPENDRANAGAR,
MANIPAL - 576 119.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. G.KRISHNAMURTHY, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. ASHOK G.V., ADVOCATE)
THIS COMPANY APPLICATION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
151 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE READ WITH RULE 9 OF
RULES FRAMED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956.
Digitally signed by
PREMCHANDRA M R
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
THIS COMPANY APPLICATION IS LISTED FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
Sri.G.Krishnamurthy., Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.Ashok G.V., for the respondent appeared in person.
There is no representation on behalf of counsel for the applicant.
CA No.264/2018 is filed seeking certain reliefs.
Senior Counsel Sri.G.Krishnamurthy., on instructions submits that the entire amount has been paid and also signed the discharge certificate. However, after the receipt of the entire amount and signing of the discharge receipt, he sought payment of interest without considering the signing of the discharge receipt.
Counsel therefore submits that the applicant is not entitled for the amount.
HC-KAR
Submission is placed on record.
Taking note of the fact that the entire amount has been paid and signing of the discharge receipt, the applicant is not entitled to seek further amount. Hence, he is stopped from seeking any payment in the matter. Accordingly, CA No.264/2018 is dismissed.
SD/- (JYOTI M) JUDGE
CH List No.: 1 Sl No.:12