CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE – IMPUGNATION OF INTERIM ORDER
The High Court of Karnataka, in Miscellaneous First Appeal No.3198 of 2020, held that the appeal had become infructuous based on a memo filed by the appellant on 04.01.2021 and dismissed the appeal accordingly.
The appeal was dismissed as having become infructuous.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3198 OF 2020 (CPC)
BETWEEN:
2
... APPELLANTS
[BY SRI. A.S.VISHWAJITH SADANANDA, ADVOCATE] AND:
SPOOKFISH INNOVATIONS PVT.LTD., HAVING ITS REGD OFFICE AT NO.497, 40TH CROSS ROAD, 8TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 070, REP.BY ITS DIRECTOR, SRI.SUDEEP SUNDARAM, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS.
… RESPONDENT
[BY SRI.MAHESH CHOWDARY, ADVOCATE]
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 01.07.2020 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1 IN O.S.NO.2901/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE XVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CCH-10, ISSUING EXPARTE ORDER OF TEMPORARY INJUNCTION AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
3
(Through Physical Hearing/Video Conferencing Hearing)
J U D G M E N T
Learned counsel Sri A. S. Vishwajith Sadananda submitted that a Memo is filed stating that the appeal has become infructuous.
Memo in that context has been filed on 04.01.2021.
Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is placed on record.
In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed as having become infructous.
Sd/- ( JUDGE)
mbb
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the miscellaneous first appeal filed under Section 43 Rule 1(r) of CPC should be allowed or dismissed due to it becoming infructuous.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
M/S. DRONGO AI LLP
RAVEESH NANDAKUMAR
PRANAV VAJAPEYAM
RAKSHITH G.B.
RAJESH KUMAR
SPOOKFISH INNOVATIONS PVT.LTD.
NATARAJ RANGASWAMY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
