Dismissed

Shri Mohammed Rafiq v. M/S Shri Prasanna

Karnataka HC17 Sept 2026COMAP/263/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The appellant filed a commercial appeal under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 challenging an order dated 09.10.2025 passed in an interim application in a commercial suit. During the hearing, counsel for the appellant sought to withdraw the appeal and indicated that a similar appeal was pending before a Division Bench of the Madras High Court. The court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed as withdrawn.

Shri Mohammed Rafiq Vs M/S Shri Prasanna — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:50938-DB COMAP No. 263 of 2026

¶3

CNR: KAHC010323322026

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH

¶8

AND

¶9

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN

¶10

COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO. 263 OF 2026

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

SHRI MOHAMMED RAFIQ SON OF LATE MOHAMMED ISHAQ AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS SHOP NO.93/1, A-BLOCK, 3RD CROSS ROAD, APMC YARD, BANDIPALYA, MYSURU-570005.

¶13

…APPELLANT

¶14

(BY SRI. MOHAMMED ZABIULLA KHAN., ADVOCATE)

¶15

Digitally signed by VASANTHA KUMARY B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

AND:

¶17

M/S SHRI PRASANNA ANJANEYA AGROTECH SY.NO.142, HISSA-1, SINDNOOR ROAD, MANVI, RAICHUR-584123. DULY REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY

¶18

…RESPONDENT

¶19

(BY SRI. MANMOHAN.P.N FOR SRI. VINAY N., ADVOCATE)

¶20

THIS COMMMERCIAL APPEAL FILED UNDER SEC.13(1A) OF THE COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, 2015, PRAYING TO SET

¶21

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

NC: 2026:KHC:50938-DB COMAP No. 263 of 2026

¶24

CNR: KAHC010323322026

¶25

ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED.09.10.2025 PASSED ON IA NO.3 IN COM.O.S.NO.125/2024 BY THE COMMERCIAL COURT AND SECOND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU, AS THE SAID ORDER IS PATENTLY PERVERSE, LEGALLY UNSUSTAINABLE, CONTRARY TO THE MANDATE OF SECTIONS 27,28 AND 29 OF THE TRADE MARKS ACT, 1999, AND AMOUNTS TO AN UNJUSTIFIED RESTRAINT ON A REGISTERED PROPRIETOR WHILE CONFERRING UNLAWFUL MONOPOLY UPON AN UNREGISTERED CLAIMANT. REJECT IN TOTALITY IA NO.3 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT PLAINTIFF BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT, HOLDING THAT A PARTY WHO HAS NO REGISTRATION NO ASSIGNMENT, NO CHAIN OF TITLE, AND WHO HAS EXPRESSLY PRINTED DISCLAIMERS RELINQUISHING PROPRIETARY RIGHTS, CANNOT IN LAW SEEK OR OBTAIN ANY INJUNCTORY PROTECTION.

¶26

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and

¶28

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN

¶29

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶30

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

¶31

After some arguments, learned counsel for the appellant submits that he would like to withdraw this appeal and will

¶32

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

NC: 2026:KHC:50938-DB COMAP No. 263 of 2026

¶35

CNR: KAHC010323322026

¶36

pursue the appeal pending before the Division Bench at Madras

¶37

High Court.

¶38

In view of the aforesaid submission, this Commercial

¶39

Appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.

¶40

Sd/(D K SINGH) JUDGE

¶41

Sd/(H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN) JUDGE

¶42

NG CT:SN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36

Shri Mohammed Rafiq v. M/S Shri Prasanna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Mohammed Rafiq v. M/S Shri Prasanna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases