Karnataka High Court
Thulasi Chandrashekar Jagadeesh vs Sri T K Ashwathnarayana Setty on 27 May, 2008
Author: H N Nagamohan Das
Bench: H N Nagamohan Das
IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA A-T BANGALORE'- DATEI) THIS THE 2773 DAY OF' MAY 2(}08'= BEFORE THE HOPPBLE Mr. JUSTICE H N NAGAMOHAN---fifisé '
CRL.P.NO.4025 op z<;o7*; ¢-A {V ' THULASI CHANDRASHEKAR JAGAD"EESH~- '-. . ' - ('I'.C.JAGADEESH) - '-- j:
s/0 VENKATACHALA §HANDRg:1$HEKAR;'f"*AA AGED A.B(JU'I'37 YEARS.» ; -
CARRYING ON BUSINESS AT §i0.'57i3; - _ "
ASHOKA ROAD, MYSORE-5?.Q eo1.,_ SB'! T K ASHWATHNARAYANA SE'I"I'¥~ _ .31c>...sRJ"'r.}:R§sHNA1AH SE'i"I'Y w = A AGED' .«x.'iaoI:JT 31 YEARS, . u:;A:e1~:~'a;m' on BUSIN was AT 140.573; ~
--V ASHGKA ROAD, MYSORE-1 - [DELE*1'ED V/O 19.3.2008], ' « _S"I'<;i '1' A MANOHAR BABU SIO T. KASHWATHNARAYANA SETTY - : F MAJOR, CARRYING ON BUSINESS AT _ 930.578, ASHUKA ROAD, MYS()RhZ-1.- n " 'A 3 SR1 '1' A AS!-{OK KUMAR S] O T. KASHWATHNARAYANA SETTY ' MAJOR, CARRYING ON BUSINESS AT» f NO578, ASHOKA ROAD. MYSUR1:3--1- ok-
has filed an appeal before this court and the same is pending adjudication.
2. During the pendency of the proceedinge ' the Trial Court, the petitioner filed a PCR No.180/99 for the offeI1ce_s committed under Section 89 of Marks Act 1953 (for short fzaen. The iflflediebyvjthe petitioner in ul§e"§dV§smissed for defauit vide omer'p_««a$zeep_ Aggrieved by this order of di55iIii3$el}'j5thé': 1§>e.titioner iseefoie this court in the present pef:it_io3:14§ ' V'
3. V _ _ mam Vazg31mens1;S'~'en both the side and perused ' e 34.,' -._v1t~pibe_ 'i:i0_t in dgisputethae parties are Vclosely V a 'business: On the question of using biisixiess trade name there we civfl Iitigations ' V ._befere this couxft. During the pendency of the civil }iteg%a':;§:1;% the petitioner initiated criminal proceedings. the eespondents' in PCR1999. The order Esixeet in PCR No.18:()/.19Q9 dglseloeeefjnfett despite suficierlt time petitioner failed to pnesecete the proceedings (jLz\;'\,z and consequenfly the Trial Court under fhe impugned OIfi§t%f">,. dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner for "
Though the Aimpugeci order is dated % 3 -- present petition is filed before this co1x:v1'?t»Ao:»i' j_ only explanation oflered by the pefitioner..for._ehis V' delay in filing this petition and aleoflifor noi proceedings befon: the Leon "of ' communication gap betweee Except this 333511503 Of ivis no other convincing the petition and to provide __ Having regexd to the mlafioexghigj 'the nature of ofience afleged and %;sv:-:nVc ie_z:;cA:y" disputes? I am of the v_-:2.pi11ion«§j}§v1vat t11is' _;;ot. a fit case ('for restoring the - '5, 89 of the Act specifics that no court shall take" of an offence 'under Sccfioo 1,» 4: eXoe_pt:oiiA_«compla_int magic by the Regisetarmor any V" cam authorised by him in wri_t_ing.M Adpmztcedly, them is no e V gggympxamt by the Reglstrar before the mm Court. Thezefore, on the face of it the compiaint by the petitioner is hit by Secfion 89 of the Act. In the circumstances. no useful purpose will be served by remagggiingthe matter to the Tnlal d\w-« Court. However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach Fs.'egist1"ar if he is so enfificd, in accordance with law. ~ appropriate relief. Accordingly, the petition 'M rejected.
DKB/-