Partly allowed¶46

M/S Katalyst Productions Pvt. Ltd. v. Mrs. Ambika G Nayak

Karnataka HC6 Apr 2026WP/21606/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru; W.P. No.21606/2025 (GM-CPC); decided 06.04.2026 by K. V. Aravind, J.; NC: 2026:KHC:18454. Keywords: Article 227 Constitution of India; Section 10 CPC; Section 151 CPC; stay of suit; parallel/identical suits; company and Managing Director as distinct plaintiffs; juristic entity's right to claim damages; defamation compensation Rs.3,00,00,000; O.S. No.148/2018; O.S. No.147/2018; I Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM Mangaluru; interim order set aside; writ allowed-in-part; respondent served and unrepresented; no precedents cited.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed-in-part: the order on I.A. No.VIII dated 28.02.2025 in O.S. No.148/2018 is set aside; the trial Court is directed to proceed further in the suit; no orders as to costs. ¶46

M/S Katalyst Productions Pvt. Ltd. Vs Mrs. Ambika G… — Company and Corporate | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition allowed-in-part: the order on I.A. No.VIII dated 28.02.2025 in O.S. No.148/2018 is set aside; the trial Court is directed to proceed further in the suit; no orders as to costs.

¶46

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial Court erred in staying further proceedings in O.S. No.148/2018 (suit by the company) pending disposal of O.S. No.147/2018 (suit by its Managing Director in his individual capacity), where the cause of action and reliefs are identical but the plaintiffs are distinct persons asserting independent rights.

¶29

Court's answer

Merely because the plaintiff in O.S. No.147/2018 represented the company in O.S. No.148/2018, his independent right to claim damages or compensation cannot be curtailed; the rights of the plaintiffs in both the suits are independent.

¶37

Ratio / Principle

Though the cause of action and the reliefs claimed in both suits are identical, the plaintiffs in the two suits assert distinct and independent grievances, and adjudication in one suit would not conclude the other without an independent enquiry.

¶42

Key takeaways

The trial Court appears to have erred in passing the impugned order solely on the basis of the description of the parties, the cause of action, and the reliefs claimed in both suits.ratio¶43
For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order is unsustainable.ratio¶44

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (K. V. Aravind, J.), oral order dated 06.04.2026 in W.P. No.21606/2025 (GM-CPC) under Article 227 of the Constitution: Allowed-in-part. The petition by M/s Katalyst Productions Pvt. Ltd. (plaintiff in O.S. No.148/2018, claiming Rs.3,00,00,000/- defamation compensation) challenged the order dated 28.02.2025 passed on I.A. No.VIII (under Ss.10 and 151 CPC) by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mangaluru, staying O.S. No.148/2018 pending disposal of O.S. No.147/2018, in which its Managing Director, Dr. Shiva Sharan Shetty, sought identical compensation in his individual capacity. Held: the company, as a juristic entity, and its Managing Director are distinct plaintiffs with independent rights; identical cause of action and reliefs do not render adjudication in one suit conclusive of the other without an independent enquiry; the stay, founded solely on the description of parties, cause of action and reliefs, was erroneous and unsustainable. Order on I.A. No.VIII set aside; trial Court directed to proceed further in the suit; no orders as to costs. Respondent served and unrepresented.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:18454 WP No. 21606 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶7

WRIT PETITION No. 21606 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

M/S KATALYST PRODUCTIONS PVT. LTD., A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY, (INCORPORATED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 1952) KNOWN BY ITS BRAND NAME AS NAMMA T.V., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, DR. SHIVASHARAN SHETTY, S/O LATE K. JAYARAM SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT SHRI GANESH BUILDING, KULAI, MANGALORE 575019.

¶10

Digitally signed by VINUTHA B S Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. CHIDANANDA KEDILAYA M., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

MRS. AMBIKA G NAYAK, D/O NOT KNOWN AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT 4-173A, EKAA, LAXMINDRANAGAR, 7^TH CROSS, KUNJIBETTU POST, UDUPI 576 102.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(NOTICE TO RESPONDENT-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶17

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:18454 WP No. 21606 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 28.02.2025 PASSED ON I.A. No.VIII IN O.S. No. 148/2018 BY THE I ADDI. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MANGALURU PRODUCED ANNEXURE-A.

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

Heard Sri.Chidananda Kedilaya M., learned counsel for

¶23

the petitioner.

¶24

The present writ petition is filed by the plaintiff in O.S. No.148/2018, impugning the order dated 28.02.2025 passed on I.A. No. VIII, filed under Section 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mangaluru (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’).

¶25

Sri Chidananda Kedilaya M., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is a private limited company represented by its Managing Director. The petitioner, as plaintiff, has instituted O.S. No.148/2018 seeking compensation of Rs.3,00,00,000/- from the defendant. It is

¶26

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:18454 WP No. 21606 of 2025

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

further submitted that the Managing Director of the petitioner, in his individual capacity, has also instituted O.S. No.147/2018 seeking identical relief of compensation of Rs.3,00,00,000/from the defendant.

¶29

3.1 Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the cause of action in both the suits is the same. However, it is contended that the petitioner–Company in O.S. No.148/2018 and Dr. Shiva Sharan Shetty, the plaintiff in O.S. No.147/2018, are acting in different and independent capacities. It is submitted that merely because the company is represented by Dr. Shiva Sharan Shetty in his capacity as Managing Director, the same would not disentitle him from seeking compensation in his individual capacity by instituting a separate suit. It is further submitted that the trial Court, without considering the distinct legal identity of the plaintiffs in both suits, and merely on the basis of the similarity in the cause of action and the reliefs claimed, has erroneously stayed further proceedings in O.S. No.148/2018 pending disposal of O.S. No.147/2018.

¶30

3.2 Learned counsel further submits that even if O.S. No.147/2018 is decided, O.S. No.148/2018 cannot be disposed

¶31

¶32

NC: 2026:KHC:18454 WP No. 21606 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

of solely on the basis of such decision, without an independent enquiry.

¶35

The respondent is served, and there is no representation.

¶36

Considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶37

O.S. No.148/2018 is instituted by a private limited company represented by its Managing Director, Dr. Shiva Sharan Shetty. The defamatory statement, which constitutes the cause of action for the suit, is also alleged to have been made against Dr. Shiva Sharan Shetty in his individual capacity, as is evident from the pleadings. The said suit is filed by the company, which, as a juristic entity, has the legal capacity to claim damages. Merely because the plaintiff in O.S. No.147/2018 has represented the company in O.S. No.148/2018, his independent right to claim damages or compensation cannot be curtailed. The rights of the plaintiffs in both the suits are independent.

¶38

Though the cause of action and the reliefs claimed in both suits are identical, the plaintiffs in the two suits assert distinct

¶39

¶40

NC: 2026:KHC:18454 WP No. 21606 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

and independent grievances, and adjudication in one suit would

¶43

not conclude the other without an independent enquiry. The trial Court appears to have erred in passing the impugned order solely on the basis of the description of the parties, the cause of action, and the reliefs claimed in both suits.

¶44