Dismissed¶66

Sri v. Prasad v Sri Manu N

Karnataka HC8 Sept 2025WP/18354/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

V Prasad and family v. Manu N and M/s Fine Tech Corporation Pvt Ltd — Karnataka HC Art. 227 writ petitions (GM-CPC) challenging orders dt. 13.09.2021 on I.A.Nos.VI & VII in Com.O.S.No.988/2021 (X Addl District & Sessions Judge, Dedicated Commercial Court, Bengaluru Rural District); dismissed as withdrawn on 08.09.2025 after the suit was dismissed on 19.04.2025; no merits decided; no precedents cited. Counsel: Seenappa K for petitioners; Sourabh R Kurubarahalli for respondent 1.

What did the court decide?

None; both writ petitions dismissed as withdrawn on the petitioners' memo after the suit Com.O.S.No.988/2021 was dismissed on 19.04.2025. ¶66

Sri v Prasad Vs Sri Manu N — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:35541 WP No. 18354 of 2021 C/W WP No. 18373 of 2021

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO. 18354 OF 2021 (GM-CPC)

¶7

C/W

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 18373 OF 2021 (GM-CPC)

¶9

IN WP No. 18354/2021

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SRI. V PRASAD S/O LATE Y VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

¶12

MISS DIVYA

¶13

D/O V PRASAD

¶14

AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS

¶15

KUM. GNANA D/O V PRASAD

¶16

Digitally signed by VIJAYALAKSHMI B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶17

AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS

¶18

MASTER HEMADRI

¶19

S/O V PRASAD

¶20

AGED ABOUT 08 YEARS

¶21

3 & 4 BEING MINOR REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN AND FATHER SRI V PRASAD

¶22

ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF: GIDDAPANAHALLI VILLAGE SULIBELE HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT- 562129.

¶23

NC: 2025:KHC:35541 WP No. 18354 of 2021 C/W WP No. 18373 of 2021

HC-KAR

…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. SEENAPPA K., ADVOCATE)

¶28

AND:

¶29

SRI. MANU N S/O M.NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT NO. 151/10 RUSTUMJI VILLAS WHITEFIELD BENGALURU - 560 066.

¶30

M/S. FINE TECH CORPORATION PVT LTD NO. 84-A MITTAL COURT 8^TH FLOOR NARIMAN POINT MUMBAI - 400 921 RESPONDENT BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY VEERESH MASKI HAVING ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT NO. 62/2 RICHMOND ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 025

¶31

…RESPONDENTS

¶32

(BY SRI.SOURABH R KURUBARAHALLI, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1)

¶33

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH THE ANNEXURE-M THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 13.09.2021, PASSED ON I.A.NO.VI, IN COM.O.S.NO.988/2021 ON THE FILE OF X ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE (DEDICATED COMMERCIAL COURT) BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGLAURU, BY ALLOWING THE I.A.NO.VI FILED BY THE PETITIONERS AND DISMISS THE SUIT IN O.S.NO.988/2021 ON

¶34

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:35541 WP No. 18354 of 2021 C/W WP No. 18373 of 2021

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

THE FILE OF X ADDL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE (DEDICATED COMMERCIAL COURT) BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, O.S.NO.988/2021 (ANNEXURE-M) ON THE FILE OF X ADDL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE (DEDICATED COMMERCIAL COURT) BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU.

¶37

IN WP NO. 18373/2021

¶38

BETWEEN:

¶39

SRI.V PRASAD S/O LATE Y VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

¶40

KUM DIVYA D/O V PRASAD AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS

¶41

KUM. GNANA D/O V PRASAD AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS

¶42

MASTER HEMADRI S/O V PRASAD AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS

¶43

3 & 4 BEING MINOR ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN AND FATHER SRI V PRASAD

¶44

ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF: GIDDAPANAHALLI VILLAGE SULIBELE HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562129.

¶45

...PETITIONERS

¶46

(BY SRI. SEENAPPA K., ADVOCATE)

¶47

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:35541 WP No. 18354 of 2021 C/W WP No. 18373 of 2021

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

AND:

¶50

SRI.MANU N S/O NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT NO. 151/10 RUSTUMJI VILLAS WHITEFIELD BENGALURU 560 066

¶51

M/S FINE TECH CORPORATION PVT LTD NO. 84-A MITTAL COURT 8^TH FLOOR, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI - 400 921

¶52

HAVING ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT NO. 62/2,RICHMOND ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 025.

¶53

...RESPONDENTS

¶54

(BY SRI.SOURBH R KURUBARHALLI, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1)

¶55

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXUREM TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD.13.9.2021 PASSED ON IA NO.VII IN COM O.S.NO.988/2021 ON THE FILE OF X ADDL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE (DEDICATED COMMERCIAL COURT) BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT BENGALURU BY ALLOWING THE IA NO.VII FILED BY THE PETITIONERS IN COM O.S.NO.988/2021 ON THE FILE OF X ADDL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE (DEDICATED COMMERCIAL COURT) BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT BENGALURU.

¶56

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶57

CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO

¶58

¶59

NC: 2025:KHC:35541 WP No. 18354 of 2021 C/W WP No. 18373 of 2021

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

ORAL ORDER

¶62

The petitioners' counsel files a memo for withdrawal

¶63

of these writ petitions. The same reads as follows:

¶64

"The Petitioner herewith, most respectfully prays that the subject matter of Suit in this Petition, i.e., Com O.S. No.988/2021, was dismissed by the Hon'ble X Addl District and Sessions Judge (dedicated Commercial Court) Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, dated 19.04.2025. Thereby this Writ Petition has become infructuous and this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to dismiss the same, in the interest of Justice and equity".

¶65

The memo is taken on record.

¶66

These writ petitions are dismissed as

¶67

withdrawn .

¶68

Sd/(DR.K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE

¶69

GSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15

Sri v. Prasad v Sri Manu N

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri v. Prasad v Sri Manu N

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G Chatrapathi Vs T B Madhukara

Sri Mallengada G Vinesh Vs Dr Devaiah M P

Sri T S Ramesh Vs M/S Surabhi Chits Limited

Shivaprasad Vs Raziya Begum

Shantarama Hegdekatte Vs Sri Srinivas

Sri Somsundar R @ Somashekar Vs Sri K Abdul Salam