M/S. Rohm Clamping Technologies Private Limited Vs M/S. Rohm Gmbh

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:13236 WP No. 6498 of 2026

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6498 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

M/S. ROHM CLAMPING TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO. 14A BELMAR INDUSTRIAL ESTATE NAGASANDRA MAIN ROAD BENGALURU-560073 A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 1956 REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR MR. KURIEN THOMAS NO. 14A, BELMAR INDUSTRIAL ESTATE NAGASANDRA MAIN ROAD BENGALURU 560 073.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. VENKATESH S ARBATTI., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by M/S. ROHM GMBH DHANALAKSHMI MURTHY HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 89567 Location: HIGH SONTHEIM GERMANY COURTOF A COMPANY INCORPORATED KARNATAKA UNDER THE LAWS OF GERMANY THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE MR. DHARAM VEER SINGH KRISHNAWAT AND/OR MR. VAIBHAV SHARMA ALSO AT HAVING ITS OFFICE AT LUNKAD SKY CRUISE WING-B, SURVEY NO. 210/3 VIMAN NAGAR PUNE-411 014 MAHARASHTRA …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.INDRAN M.B. ADVOCATE)

¶12

2 -

¶13

NC: 2026:KHC:13236 WP No. 6498 of 2026

¶14

HC-KAR

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER IN THE NATURE OF A WRIT, THEREBY QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 04.02.2026 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THE LXXXVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, COMMERCIAL COURT, BENGALURU (CCH-88), IN ALLOWING THE APPLICATION/IA. NO.XI FOR APPOINTMENT OF THE COURT COMMISSIONER TO RECORD THE EVIDENCE OF PLAINTIFF WITNESS AS PER ANNEXURE A IN COM. O.S. NO. 670 OF 2023 AND ETC.

¶16

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

¶17

ORAL ORDER

¶18

In this writ petition, the petitioner-defendant has called in question the order dated 04.02.2026 passed by the LXXXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Commercial Court, Bengaluru (CCH-88) (hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’ for short), whereby the memo filed along with a copy of the application, i.e., I.A.No.XI filed by the respondent-plaintiff under Order XXVI Rule 2 read with Section 151 of the CPC, for appointment of an advocate as Court Commissioner to record the evidence of plaintiff witnesses in Com.O.S.No.670/2023, has been allowed.

¶19

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:13236 WP No. 6498 of 2026

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred

¶22

to as per their ranking before the Trial Court.

¶23

The plaintiff has filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction in respect of infringement of trademark along with recovery of money. After entering appearance, the defendant has filed a written statement along with a counter-claim. The counsel for the plaintiff filed a memo dated 04.02.2026 vide Annexure-D seeking time to file an application for appointment of an advocate as Commissioner in the above suit. On the said memo itself, the Trial Court by impugned order dated 04.02.2026 appointed a Court Commissioner on the ground that the defendant had no objection. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner-defendant is before this Court.

¶24

The defendant has filed this writ petition and taken specific contentions that he had no objection for granting time for adjournment; however, he had an objection to allowing the application without filing a proper I.A. enclosing certified copies of the documents. It is wrongly

¶25

4 -

¶26

NC: 2026:KHC:13236 WP No. 6498 of 2026

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

recorded that the advocate had no objection to allow the application.

¶29

Be that as it may, the memo was filed only seeking time to file an application for appointment of a Commissioner after securing all necessary documents.

¶30

Learned counsel for the plaintiff–respondent submitted that they have now secured all original documents and therefore may be permitted to file a fresh application along with the necessary documents for appointment of an advocate as Commissioner.

¶31

In view of the above, the following order is passed:

¶32

ORDER

¶33

a) The writ petition is disposed of.

¶34

b) The impugned order dated 04.02.2026 passed by the LXXXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Commercial Court, Bengaluru (CCH-88) vide Annexure-A, is set aside.

¶35