Karnataka High Court
WP/278/2020 of M/S. BAL PHARMA LIMITED Vs M/S. IMPEL CHEMICALS PVT LTD on 19 September 2026
CNR: KAHC010512662019 NC: 2026:KHC:51387 WP No. 278 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.278 OF 2020 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. M/S.BAL PHARMA LIMITED A COMPANY
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO.278 OF 2020 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1.
M/S.BAL PHARMA LIMITED
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE
INDIAN COMPANIES ACT, 1956
HAVING ITS REGISTRED OFFICE AND FACTORY
AT 21 AND 22, BOMMASANDRA INDUSTRIAL AREA
BANGALORE - 560 099 AND
CORPORATE OFFICE AT:
5TH FLOOR, LAXMI NARAYAN COMLPLEX
NO.10/1, PALACE ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 052
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
MR.SHAILESH DEERAJMAL SIROYA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
S/O SRI.D.B.SIROYA
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. D PRABHAKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
M/S.IMPEL CHEMICALS PVT LTD
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE
INDIAN COMPANIES ACT, 1956
HAVING ITS REGD. OFFICE AT
925, D-1, PRASAD, F.C. ROAD
Verified
HC-KAR
SHIVAJINAGAR, PUNE - 411 004
THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY/
MANAGING DIRECTOR
MR.SHRIKANT VISHWANATH BIBIKAR
…RESPONDENT
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED
20.08.2019 PASSED BY THE HONBLE XVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS
JUDGE,
BANGALORE,
IN
EXECUTION
PETITION
NO.140/2015
ON
I.A.NO.2
FILED
U/SEC.151
CPC
VIDE
ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
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
The captioned writ petition is filed by the Judgment Debtor, calling in question the proceedings pending in execution of the decree passed in a summary suit.
2. The principal contention of the learned counsel appearing for the
Judgment
Debtor is that the respondent–Decree Holder Company ceased to exist with effect from 31.03.2007 pursuant to the notice issued by
Verified
HC-KAR
the Registrar of Companies in exercise of the powers under Section 248(4) of the Companies Act, 2013, and its name having been struck off from the Register of Companies, it has lost its locus to seek enforcement of the decree and recover the decreetal amount.
3. Per-contra, learned counsel appearing for the Decree Holder would contend that the mere striking off of the name of the Company from the Register of Companies does not extinguish the debts and monies due to the Company from third parties. Placing reliance on Sections 248 and 250 of the Companies Act, 2013, it is contended that the Company continues to retain the right to recover the amounts due to it, notwithstanding its dissolution in terms of Section 248 of the Companies Act.
4. The Executing Court, having considered the rival contentions, has adverted to the statutory scheme under Sections 248 and 250 of the Companies Act, 2013, and has held that the debts and monies due to the Company
Verified
HC-KAR
from third parties are not extinguished merely on account of the striking off of its name from the Register of Companies. Consequently, the application filed by the Judgment Debtor has been rejected.
5. Having examined the order under challenge and the contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds no infirmity in the approach adopted by the learned Executing Court. The Executing Court has rightly considered the effect of Section 250 of the Companies Act, 2013, and has concluded that the striking off of the name of the Company does not, by itself, extinguish its entitlement to recover the debts and monies due to it from third parties. The decree, therefore, cannot be rendered inexecutable merely on the ground urged by the Judgment Debtor.
6. No illegality or jurisdictional error is found in the order impugned warranting interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction of this Court.
Verified
HC-KAR
Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed.
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE
NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11
Verified