Dismissed

Mr Sunil Kumar Nahar v. M/S Melange

Karnataka HC13 Mar 2024WP/1229/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court heard a writ petition seeking to set aside a commercial court order rejecting an application to appoint a commissioner. The petitioner chose to withdraw the interim application. The court disposed of the writ petition and the impugned application as withdrawn.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition and I.A. No.1 are disposed of as withdrawn; liberty reserved to file appropriate application before Trial Court.

Mr Sunil Kumar Nahar Vs M/S Melange — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:10436 WP No. 1229 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 1229 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MR. SUNIL KUMAR NAHAR S/O. MR. GAUTAM CHAND NAHAR, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.22, PANCHAVATI, 18^TH CROSS, 10^TH MAIN, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU – 560 055.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI: MANU PRABHAKAR KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by VANDANA S Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

M/S MELANGE A UNIT OF TRIANGLE PROPERTY DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED, A COMPANY WITHIN THE MEANING OF COMPANIES ACT, 2013, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT, SURYAMUKHI GARDEN APARTMENT, NO.21, VITTAL MALLYA ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE MRS. BHARATHI B.V.

¶14

MRS. MANJULA VARSHNEY W/O. LATE MR. RAJKUMAR GUPTA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT

¶15

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:10436 WP No. 1229 of 2024

¶16

VILLA NO.12A, FREE ZONE, SHANTY SADAN, VILLA GREENS, GANDHIPET MAIN ROAD, RAJENDRA NAGAR MANDAL, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT – 500 075. TELANGANA, ALSO AT NO.B-17/F4, VIDGYANPURI COLONY, VIDYANAGAR, HYDERABAD – 500 044 TELANGANA

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI: SREEVATSA S. SR. COUNSEL FOR UDITA RAMESH ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DT 12/1/24)

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 PRAYING TO A) CALL FOR RECORDS IN COM. O.S. NO. 1872/2022 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LD. LXXXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (COMMERCIAL COURT) (CCH-86). B) SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 25/11/2023 (ANNEXURE-A), PASSED BY THE LD. LXXXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, _ENGALURU (COMMERCIAL COURT) (CCH-86) REJECTING THE I.A. NO. 1 UNDER ORDER XXVI RULE 9 READ WITH SECTION 151, CPC, AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW I.A. NO. 1 (ANNEXURE-E) IN COM. O.S. NO. 1872/2022.

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:10436 WP No. 1229 of 2024

¶22

ORDER

¶23

This petition by the defendant in Commercial O.S.No.1872/2022 is directed against the impugned order dated 25.11.2023 passed by the LXXXV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore whereby the application I.A.No.1 filed by the petitioner-defendant under Order 26 Rule 9, CPC for appointment of a Court Commissioner to conduct local inspection of the suit schedule premises was rejected by the Trial Court.

¶24

After arguing the matter for some time, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner intends to withdraw I.A.No.1 filed by him before the Trial Court and the present petition may be disposed of as withdrawn by directing I.A.No.1 to be disposed of as withdrawn reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to file an appropriate application subsequently and the Trial Court may be directed to dispose of such an application to be filed without being influenced by the findings and observations recorded in the impugned order.

¶25

Submission is placed on record.

¶26

¶27

NC: 2024:KHC:10436 WP No. 1229 of 2024

¶28

The present petition as well as I.A.No.1 filed by the petitioner in Comm.O.S.No.1872/2022 are disposed of as withdrawn.

¶29

Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to file appropriate application(s) before the Trial Court at subsequent point of time which shall be considered by the Trial Court after providing an opportunity to the respondents and without being influenced by the findings and observations recorded in the impugned order.

¶30

DHA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11

¶31

Sd/JUDGE

Mr Sunil Kumar Nahar v. M/S Melange

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Sunil Kumar Nahar v. M/S Melange

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

Sri Mandya Ramalinge Gowda Ashoknanda Vs the Chief Commissioner of

R Anasuyammya Vs Sri M Thippaiah

Bhavani Glass and Plywood Traders Vs the Income Tax Officer

P. Hanumantha Raju Vs Smt. Kalamma

Bangalore Baptist Church Vs Charles Isaac

Sri Shivanna Vs Smt Ramakka