Karnataka High Court
Regus Bangalore Suburb Centre Private ... vs Mr. Raj Arjun Menda (Managing Director) on 22 November, 2017
Bench: B.S Patil, Aravind Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
C.C.C.No.203 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
Regus Bangalore Suburb Centre
Private Limited, Having an office at:
Level 1, Tower 'B',
Regus Millenia No.1 & 2,
Murphy Road, Ulsoor
Bangalore - 560 008,
R/by Authorized Signatory:
Mr.Maxy Fernandes,
Aged about 51 years. .. Complainant
(By Sri Seetharam A.N., Advocate for
Smt.Meena Venugopal, Advocate)
AND:
1. Mr.Raj Arjun Menda
(Managing Director)
Age: Major,
RMZ Infotech Private Limited,
Having its Registered Office at:
Level 12-14, Tower 'B',
The Millenia No. 1 & 2.
Murphy Road, Ulsoor
Bangalore - 560 008.
2. Mr.Raj Arjun Menda
Age: Major,
Corporate Chairman and
2
Managing Director,
RMZ Infotech Private Limited,
Level 12-14, Tower 'B',
The Millenia No. 1 & 2.
Murphy Road, Ulsoor
Bangalore - 560 008.
3. Mr.Manoj Arjun Menda
Director
Aged about 49 years,
RMZ Infotech Private Limited,
Level 12-14, Tower 'B',
The Millenia No. 1 & 2.
Murphy Road, Ulsoor
Bangalore - 560 008.
4. Mr.Siddharth Menda (CEO)
Age: Major,
Cowrks Coworking Space Private Limited,
Having its Registered Office at:
Level 12-14, Tower 'B',
The Millenia No. 1 & 2.
Murphy Road, Ulsoor
Bangalore - 560 008.
5. Mr.Sidharth Menda, CEO
Aged about 29 years,
Cowrks Coworking Space Private Limited,
Level 12-14, Tower 'B',
The Millenia No. 1 & 2.
Murphy Road, Ulsoor
Bangalore - 560 008. ... Accused
This C.C.C. is filed under Sections 10 and 11 of
the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 praying to issue notice
to the accused to show cause as to why it should not be
punished for contempt for violating the order dated
December 16, 2016 passed in A.A.No.462/2016 and
etc.,
This C.C.C., coming on for orders, this day,
B.S.PATIL J., made the following:
3
ORDER
Counsel for the complainant submits that in view of the subsequent developments, the complainant does not press this contempt petition.
2. Recording this submission and the memo filed in this regard, the contempt petition is dismissed as not pressed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE Cm/-