Dismissed

Mohammed Rafeeq v. Prabhat Amashi

Karnataka HC27 Mar 2024WP/31650/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court dismissed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India as withdrawn. The Court characterized the petition as mischievous and noted it had halted trial proceedings for over four years. The petitioner was directed to pay Rs. 20,000 as costs to the respondent.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as withdrawn; Petitioner directed to pay cost of Rs. 20,000 to Respondent No. 1.

Mohammed Rafeeq Vs Prabhat Amashi — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:12745 WP No. 31650 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 31650 OF 2019 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MOHAMMED RAFEEQ S/O. LATE JAFAR SHARIFF, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.1451, GROUND FLOOR, C-TYPE, BDA FLAT, AUSTIN TOWN, BANGALORE-560047

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. S. MRUTHYUNJAYA, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by BS RAVIKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

PRABHAT AMASHI S/O DUNDAPPA AMASHI, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.47, 9^TH MAIN, 1^ST CROSS, HAL 3 STAGE, BENGALURU-560075. REPRESENTED BY HIS WIFE AND GPA HOLDER SMT. LATHA PRABHAT AMASHI SINCE DEAD BY LRS

¶13

1(a) LATHA PRABHAT AMASHI W/O LATE PRABHAT AMASHI, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.47, 9^TH MAIN, 1^ST CROSS, HAL 3^RD STAGE, BENGALURU-560075.

¶14

1(b) MS. NAINA AMASHI D/O LATE PRABHAT AMASHI

¶15

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:12745 WP No. 31650 of 2019

¶16

AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,

¶17

1(c) NIKHIL AMASHI S/O LATE PRABHAT AMASHI AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,

¶18

BOTH RESIDING AT NO.47, 9^TH MAIN, 1^ST CROSS, HAL 3^RD STAGE, BENGALURU-560075.

¶19

SURESH DHALBHAJAN S/O LATE SUNDAR, 69 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.1451, GROUND FLOOR, C-TYPE, BDA FLAT, AUSTIN TOWN, BANGALORE-560047.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. UDAY K.S., ADVOCATE FOR LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF DECEASED RESPONDENT NO.1; VIDE ORDER DATED 03.02.2020, SERVICE OF NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH OF ANNEXURES-R AND S THE ORDERS DATED 30.1.2019 PASSED LXIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, COURT HALL NO.65, BENGALURU ON I.A.NO.10 AND I.A.NO.11 IN O.S.NO.4493/16.

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

ORDER

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner after arguing the

¶26

petition at length, sought permission to withdraw this petition.

¶27

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner,

¶28

this Court felt that this writ petition is a thoroughly mischievous

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC:12745 WP No. 31650 of 2019

¶31

petition intended to protract the proceedings before the Trial Court. As a result of this, the proceedings before the Trial Court is halted for over four years.

¶32

In that view of the matter, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. However, the petitioner herein is directed to pay cost of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) payable to the respondent No.1/plaintiff (since deceased represented by his legal representatives) before the Trial Court on the next date of hearing.

¶33

It is made clear the if the petitioner fails to pay the cost as stated above, the Trial Court will be at liberty to strike off the defence of the defendants and proceed in accordance with law.

¶34

Sd/JUDGE

¶35

PMR

¶36

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31

Mohammed Rafeeq v. Prabhat Amashi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Rafeeq v. Prabhat Amashi

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. J. Ramanathan Vs Sri. Shreesh Mudri

M/S Rams Enterprises Vs M/S Blue Hyundai

Mr K S Mohana Rao Vs the Scintilla Apartments Residents Welfare Association

Sri Ameerjan Vs Smt Shakilabanu

M/S United Groups Vs Mahendra Hotels

Sri. R. Krishna Vs Sri. Chandrashekar T B