Dismissed

M/S Tiny World Technologies v. M/S Orange Computers Services

Karnataka HC17 Jun 2026CRL.RP/1630/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed an application filed in a criminal revision petition, finding that extension of time for depositing the fine amount was not warranted due to prior default. Consequently, the revision petition itself could not be considered.

What did the court decide?

Rejection of I.A. No. 1/2026 and dismissal of the criminal revision petition for non-compliance with earlier deposit order.

M/S Tiny World Technologies Vs M/S Orange… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:29608 CRL.RP No. 1630 of 2025

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1630 OF 2025

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

M/S TINY WORLD TECHNOLOGIES A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.589, 2ND FLOOR, 2ND MAIN, 7TH CROSS, ARAVIND NAGAR, MYSORE-570 023, TALUK:MYSORE DISTRICT:MYSORE.

¶9

ALSO AT NO.45, SRINIVAS, 3RD FLOOR, KUMARA PARK EAST, BENGALURU-560001.

¶10

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

SMT. MAHALAKSHMI WIFE OF SRI.CHIKKALINGE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, RESIDING AT HOUSE NO. 295, 18TH MAIN, B BLOCK, VIJAYANAGARA,3RD STAGE, MYSORE-570 017, TALUK:MYSORE DISTRICT:MYSORE.

¶12

MR. AKSHAY. C. S. SON OF SRI. SUDARSHAN BABU. C. S., AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, RESIDIG AT NO. 22, SKANDA NILAYA, KANAKAMARA ROAD, K.V. EXTENSION,

¶13

¶14

NC: 2026:KHC:29608 CRL.RP No. 1630 of 2025

¶15

HC-KAR

¶16

KRISHNARAJAPURAM, BANGALORE-560 036.

¶17

…PETITIONERS

¶18

(BY SRI. REENA R,ADVOCATE)

¶19

AND:

¶20

M/S ORANGE COMPUTERS SERVICES PROPRIETORSHIP FIRM HAVING OFFICE AT NO. 1ST FLOOR, 3RD MAIN ROAD,MARUTHI EXTENSION, NEAR SRIRAMPURA METRO STATION, BENGALURU-560 021, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETRIX, SMT. D. LATHA, DAUGHTER OF DURAI, WIFE OF ARUN KUMAR. E

¶21

…RESPONDENT

¶22

(BY SRI. MELANIE SEBASTIAN,ADVOCATE)

¶23

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C (U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO ALLOW THIS PETITION BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND ORDER OF THE VI ACMM, BANGALORE CITY, SCCH-6 DTD 19.06.2023 IN CC.NO.4656/2020 AND ALSO THE JUDGEMENT AND ORDER OF THE LVIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE IN CRL.A.NO.948/2023 AND CONSEQUENTLY ACQUIT THE PETITIONER FROM THE SAID OFFENCES.

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

¶26

NC: 2026:KHC:29608 CRL.RP No. 1630 of 2025

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

Heard the learned counsel for revision petitioners on

¶31

IA No.1/2026 seeking for extension of time.

¶32

2. This Court vide order dated 25.02.2026 has directed the revision petitioners to deposit 40% of the fine amount inclusive of the amount already deposited within a period of six weeks from the date of the order and no application is filed within the expiry of period of six weeks. Instead of that, the revision petitioners has filed the present application on 09.04.2026 i.e., almost after four months and not tendered any demand draft.

¶33

3. Today also, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners again seeks time to deposit the fine amount and there is no meaning in granting time once again when the time is stipulated by this Court to deposit the amount within a period of six weeks. Apart from that, learned counsel appearing for respondent would submit that he has not deposited the amount as directed by the appellate

¶34

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:29608 CRL.RP No. 1630 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

Court in Crl.A.No.948/2023. Under the said circumstances, the question of granting time does not arise and also when the petitioner fails to obey the order of this Court, question of consideration of this revision petition also does not arise since this revision petition is against the concurrent finding of the trial Court in C.C.No.4656/2020, wherein the revision petitioner has directed to pay fine amount of Rs.4,12,61,034/-. The same is confirmed by the appellate Court in Crl.A.No.948/2023. Therefore, the question of consideration of granting time to deposit the fine amount as per the conditional order dated 25.02.2026 and so also consideration of this revision petition do not arise. Accordingly, I.A.No.1/2026 is rejected and consequently, the revision petition stands dismissed.

¶37

Sd/(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

¶38

SSD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13

M/S Tiny World Technologies v. M/S Orange Computers Services

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Tiny World Technologies v. M/S Orange Computers Services

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Siddalingappa Vs Sri Revana Siddaiah

Sri Shivakumar Vs Sri H S Raghavendra

Mr a P Sridhar Vs Shubha K S

Ehaa Hospital Vs Dr. Vishukumar M J

Mr. Yathindra B Vs Sri. P. Bhaskar Reddy

Sai Prasad Rao P Vs K Harish