Karnataka High Court
M/S. Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages ... vs Hindustan Coca-Cola Bottling South ... on 15 December, 2010
Author: A.N.Venugopala Gowda
Bench: A.N.Venugopala Gowda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 15*" DAY OF DECEMBER, 2o1,oPE.._:"P._V BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.vENuGOR.A~EA'j33OIrvDA " WRIT PETITION No.1 29"79'z%2o IIof3"r\I;CPC.I" E , C' BETWEEN: M/s. Hindustan CoCa--Co!a Beverages Private Ltd.,.~- _ .. . _ -- A Company registered Wu-.n'der the, . A " I Provisions of Indian Compa_nies..AC»t, _1'9.5j6_ -. Having its registered office, at ' " ._ No.13, Abul i-"a_za.ia Road; V E Bengali Market, _ _ _' New Delhi At No.18, Bidadi indu'str.ia'iTArea'; Bidadi RamanagaraT'n5Dist'riCt,--.it Bangaio.re"--' 562 1.09, _ E _ Represented by its Man_ag__e'r","Pui3iiC Affairs and Commu.nications7&'Authorised signatory Sri M;adh_uprasad,"son of Shri H.V.Nanjundappa, V. Agedaa 36 y"ea...r._S_.... . ... PETITIONER "(~33/s'riAv'iL;;ek'Roiia, for M/S. Holia & Hoila, Advs.) ANESE: .. "';P».,Hinid._IIstVan CoCa--Co|a Bottling - j " .S'o.uti?i West Pvt. Ltd., 7 Employees Union (CITU), ljfaving its office at No.20/1, "v.G.Gopai Building, E0 Lalbagh Fort Road, Bangalore - 560 004, Represented by its General Secretary. (By Sri T.S.Anantharam, Adv.) .. RESP--Oi\lD--Ei\iT This writ petition is filed under Article.s_22,6'a_fnd4 22/"--« _ of the Constitution of India, prayingto q'uashJfthe"o'r.der ' 16.4.2010 passed on I.A.No.I, in the suit o.s;v.o.'7.:iV/V2o;o"« on the fiie of the Principal Civi'igJu_dge, 'P..ain.ai1aga--raf'r:i (Annexure -- 3) and direct anorder of t'e.mpora.il,;rginjunctioin as sought for, in I.A.No.I in .the suit"O.S._i\£'oV.7"1_/20.1.5) on v ' the file of the Principal Civil Jud'g.,e,* Rama"n.ag'aram'.;: This petition com"in.g on'for"pfrelgfirnignaryf'hearing in 'B' group this day, the Cou'i'tCmAa'de the folio_gwi.ng:- Sri appearing for the tilietionciliation efforts having materiaiised gehxtent, the workmen have withdrawn*-tgheirgffstruggle'and they are attending to the af_ter__ 13.u4';2.0.1.0. Learned counsel further submits 'that,._itV'isfunn_ecessary for the petitioner to prosecute C).S';'71/V2(f3uiV1DV..s1'pending on the fiie of the Civii Judge (Jr.Dn.,§.{ Ramanagaram. 2. There is no representation for the petitioner ....either in the morning session or in the afternoon session. . [X f.» 3. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 16.4.2010 passed on I.A.1 in o.s.71/2o1o,Vyby:"itiie Civii Judge (3r.Dn.,), Ramanagaram, directing"iss~u_e_V~7or».H emergent notice and suit summons to thereby refusing to pass ex parte 'te4n*ipo_'ra.r.y:' injunction. 4. This Court while 'emergent notice to the res;:3onderi:i.t",':'-by 2Z'5AA.ciAi2010, as an interim measure, not to block ingress Fpe.ti'tioner -- Company till next fu direction not to create nuisance' within' about 100 meters from the maingunit. itV-iriiasmaideziciear that, the order shall not be ."V'trea'tedE"-has pr.eventiVn'g«the defendant from carrying out any 2'~.dVewmonsti'*aVt'ion-Llpeyond the limits of 100 meters in acc'o__rdav_riCeV5Nith iaw. .5,_.A«:'Since the conciliation efforts putforth by the V."V'aut_h:o'rities to bring about a settlement between the __petitioner and respondent has been materiaiised and the
yaw"
4respondent has withdrawn its struggle and there being no disturbance with regard to the working of the petitioner unit, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition as having become unnecessary. 'V Ordered accordingly.
K53'/-