Disposed

M/S Rajesh Exports Limited v. Prime Corporate Branch

Karnataka HC6 Apr 2021MFA/1698/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka disposed of an appeal filed under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC against an order dismissing an interim application. Subsequent coercive measures rendered the appeal unnecessary, and liberty was reserved for the appellant to approach the Trial Court for relief. The appeal was disposed of as having become unnecessary.

What did the court decide?

Liberty reserved to the appellant to seek appropriate relief before the Trial Court.

M/S Rajesh Exports Limited Vs Prime… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 06^TH DAY OF APRIL 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA

¶6

M.F.A.No.1698/2021(CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

M/S RAJESH EXPORTS LIMITED, A PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT 1956, HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT No.4, BATAVIA CHAMBERS, KUMARA KRUPA ROAD, KUMAR PARK EAST, BANGALORE – 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN MR.RAJESH MEHTA.

¶9

… APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. G.S.KANNUR SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI.RAGHU.H.P., ADV.)

¶11

AND:

¶12

PRIME CORPORATE BRANCH,

¶13

CANARA BANK, RAMANASHREE ARCADE, 3^RD FLOOR, M.G.ROAD,

¶14

BANGALORE – 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY.

¶15

CANARA BANK, REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 112, J.C.ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 002. REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY.

¶16

… RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. BRIJESH CHANDER GURU, ADV., FOR C/R-2)

¶18

¶19

THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 15.03.2021 PASSED ON I.A.No.1/2021 IN O.S.No.26432/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU CCH-21, DISMISSING THE I.A.1/2021 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC.

¶20

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

This appeal is filed challenging the rejection of I.A.No.1/2021, by which the plaintiff sought to restrain the defendant from taking up any coercive measures.

¶23

It is stated by the learned senior counsel for the appellant that pursuant to the impugned order coercive measures have been taken by the defendant.

¶24

In view of this submission, obviously, this appeal filed against the impugned order which was made on an application seeking to restrain the respondents from initiating any coercive steps would not survive for consideration.

¶25

¶26

Learned senior counsel submits that liberty may be reserved to the appellant to seek appropriate relief for making a fresh application before the trial Court.

¶27

Reserving liberty to the appellant to seek for appropriate relief before the Trial Court in view of the subsequent event, the appeal is disposed of as having become unnecessary.

¶28

Sd/JUDGE

¶29

M/S Rajesh Exports Limited v. Prime Corporate Branch

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Rajesh Exports Limited v. Prime Corporate Branch

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Indiranagar Club Vs Mr. Arvind Redy P

Sri N Umesh Vs Sri P Ramajaneya

Sri B Nagaraju Vs Sri P Ramajaneya

A Krishna Vs Smt. Jayamma

Sri Narasimhappa Vs Sri Gangareddy

Sri Gurushanthappa Vs C R Nagaraja