AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Jyoti Mulimani, J
Ms.Spoorthi Cotha., counsel on behalf of Sri.A.S.Vishwajith., for the applicant and Sri.Shrishail Navalgund., counsel for the Official Liquidator have appeared in person.
Counsel for the applicant submits that the captioned application is filed for production of additional document i.e., Letter dated 04.02.2016 issued by the Karnataka State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited. Counsel further submits that the applicant has sworn to an affidavit narrating the reasons to allow the application. Counsel therefore, submits that the same may be taken note of and the application may be allowed.
Counsel for the Official Liquidator submits that a detailed statement of objection is filed to the application. The same may be taken note of and the application may be dismissed.
Heard the arguments and perused the application and also the statement of objections with utmost care.
The captioned application is filed for the production of additional document i.e., letter dated 04.02.2016 issued by the Karnataka State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited to the applicant. Mr.R.B.Kamath - the applicant has sworn to a declaration of facts in the form of an affidavit. In the affidavit he has stated that the statement of objections was filed in 2006 and the letter was issued only in 2016, hence he could not produce it along with the statement of objections. Urging other reasons, a prayer is made to allow the application.
The true copy of the letter is furnished along with the application. It is dated 04.02.2016. Except stating that the letter was issued after filing of statement of objections, nothing has been stated by the applicant that despite due diligence, the document was not furnished from 2016 till 2025.
Counsel for the applicant in presenting her arguments strenuously urged that no prejudice will be caused to the other side if the application is allowed. The said contention cannot be accepted, what is required to be considered is whether the applicant was diligent in producing the document well in time. The answer is No. There is an inordinate delay of almost nine years in filing the application. Needless to say, a feeble attempt is made to delay the proceedings. The reasons accorded in the application are not satisfactory. I decline to allow the application and permit the applicant to furnish the said document.
Resultantly, the Company Application is rejected.