Madras High Court
OSA/137/2023 of Venkatesan Nagarajan Vs The Official Liquidator on 14 October 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 14-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GK.MUTHUKUMAAR
OSA No. 137 of 2023 and CMP.No.16739 of 2023
CNR: {HCMA011174352023}
Venkatesan Nagarajan
..Appellant(s)
Vs
1. The Official Liquidator
High Court of Madras as the Liquidator of M/s.Rayalseema Commodities Limited (in liquidation).
2. Joy Prokash Banerjee
3. Parthasarathy Jagannathan
4. Binod Kumar
..Respondent(s)
Original Side Appeal filed under Order XXXVI Rule 1 of OS Rules read with Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the Order dated 23.06.2023 made in company Application No. 470/2013 in Company Petition No. 303/2010 insofar as the Appellant.
For Appellant(s):
Mr.K.Sakthivel
For Respondent(s):
Ms.B.Ambili,
Deputy Official Liquidator
High Court of Madras for R1
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.
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by N.Sathish Kumar J.) By order dated 23.06.2023, learned Single Judge in Comp.A.No.470 of 2013 in CP.No.303 of 2010 directed the Registry to list the matter on 05.07.2023 before the learned Master for recording evidence and after recording evidence, list the same before this Court on 14.07.2023. Challenging the said order, the present appeal has been filed.
2. Originally, Company Petition was filed to take cognisance of the offence under Section 454(5A) of the Companies Act, 1956 alleging that the ex- directors have not complied with the directions given by this Court by filing of the statement of affairs and they have not approached the Official Liquidator seeking any extension of time and so many other grounds are raised. The said application has been disputed by the appellant, therefore, before going to decide the disputed facts, the learned Single Judge directed that the evidence to be let in. The said order has been challenged.
3. Heard the learned counsel for appellant and the Deputy Official Liquidator for R1 and perused the materials placed on record.
4. We are of the view that this appeal is nothing but abuse of process of law. When the disputed facts have been raised, it is normal for the Court to have evidence before it, therefore listing all the matter for letting in evidence in our view the same cannot be challenged. In such view of the matter, we do not find any merits in this appeal. Let the appellant give evidence before the Court and appear before the learned Master on 02.11.2026. At this stage, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there is some difficulty for the appellant to appear before the learned Master as he is suffering from ailments, therefore, he may be permitted to appear through VC, in such case, request may be made before the learned Master.
5. Accordingly, this appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition stands closed. (N.S.K.,J.) (G.K.M.,J.) 14-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No dhk
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J. AND GK.MUTHUKUMAAR, J. dhk OSA No. 137 of 2023 14-10-2026