Microsoft Corp Vs Vikram Redlapalli

¶1

Cont.P.No.2726 of 2013

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated : 12.02.2021

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA

¶6

Cont.P.No.2726 of 2013 1.Microsoft Corporation One Microsoft Way, Redmond, WA 98052-6399, USA Represented by its duly constituted & Authorised Power of Attorney Mr.Vishal Ahuja.

¶7

2.Microsoft Corporation India Private Limited, 6^th floor, Lancor Westminster, #108 Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004. Represented by its duly constituted & Authorised Power of Attorney Mr.Vishal Ahuja. ... Petitioners/Applicants/Plaintiffs Vs.

¶8

1.Vikram Redapalli 2.Mr.Nagaraj 3.Mr.Ramesh ... Respondents

¶9

Prayer : Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 to punish the respondents herein for disobedience / obstruction / preventing the execution of the order of this Court dated 14.06.2013 made in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶10

1/2

¶11

Cont.P.No.2726 of 2013

¶12

A.No.2409 of 2013 in C.S.No.378 of 2013 on the file of the original side of this Court.

¶13

For Petitioners : M/s.GMS Law Associates For Respondents : Not ready in notice

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The application made in the contempt petition is that the Advocate Commissioner was not permitted to execute his warrant. It is for the Advocate Commissioner being the Officer of the Court to approach the Court. However, such a step was not taken by the Advocate Commissioner. Therefore, the petition is not maintainable and the petition is dismissed. SD/ASSISTANT REGISTRAR(COMM.CASES) kan //Certified to be true copy//

¶16

Dated at Madras this the day of 2021.

¶17

COURT OFFICER(O.S.) from 25^th day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing Certified copies of the Orders/Judgments/Decrees in this format.

¶18

GS/25/03/2021

¶19

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶20

2/2

Microsoft Corp v. Vikram Redlapalli

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Microsoft Corp v. Vikram Redlapalli

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Case details

Similar cases

S R Jangid IPS Vs Nagaimugan

Will of E.K.Pattabirama Vs P.Saraswathi Ammal

M/s.Edac Engineering Limited, Rep. by its Legal Officer Mr.v.Balaji Pathak, Vs M/s. Kirloskar Corrocoat Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Company Secretary Mr.AnujaLatukar

Sri Vari Enterprises Vs M/S.Haji Sattar & Sons

T.S.Muruganandam Vs M/S.Haji Sattar & Sons

Mr.K.Udayakumar Vs Mr.Syed Ahmed M.