The High Court of Karnataka, on a writ petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of an order and allowing interim applications, dismissed the petition as having become infructuous since the original underlying suit had stood closed.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY
WRIT PETITION No.14696 OF 2018 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
.. Petitioners
(By Smt. Avani Chokshi, for Smt. Maitreyi Krishnan, Advocate)
AND:
M/s. Lundbeck India Private Limited A company incorporated under the Provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at Esteem Regency, II Floor, #6/A, Richmond Road, Bangalore – 560 025
W.P.No.14696/2018
2
Represented by its Finance Controller And Company Secretary, Laxminarayana Joisa H.
.. Respondent
(By Smt. Ashwini N. Ravindra, for Sri. Sanjanthi Sajan Poovayya, Advocate)
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ, order or direction, in the nature of certiorari or such writ or order to quash the order passed by the learned IV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Mayo Hall, Bangalore (CCH-21) dated 17-01-2018 in O.S.No.25340/2011 (Annexure J) and allow the interim application dated 15-09-2012 (Annexure –D) and 26-03-2014 (Annexure E) filed by the 1st and 2nd defendants under Order VIII Rule I(A),(3) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908; etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ group, through Physical Hearing/Video Conferencing Hearing, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R
Learned counsels from both side present.
Learned counsel for the petitioners files a memo, stating that the original suit from which the present writ petition has arisen since has stood closed, the present writ petition has become infructuous.
Learned counsel for the respondent also makes a supporting submission on similar lines.
W.P.No.14696/2018
3
In view of the memo and the supporting submissions, the present writ petition stands dismissed as having become infructuous.
Sd/JUDGE
BMV*
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
NoneReferred
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Dr. Chandra M. Gulhati
A.E. Morgan Publications (India) Private Limited
M/s. Lundbeck India Private Limited
Dr. H.B. Prabhakar Sastry
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
