Karnataka High Court
Smt. Lakshmamma vs M/S Huawei Technologies India Pvt. Ltd on 27 November, 2023
Author: S.G.Pandit
Bench: S.G.Pandit
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:42812
WP No. 25638 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
WRIT PETITION NO. 25638 OF 2023 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
W/O LATE SRI R NARAYANA REDDY,
2. SMT HEMAVATHY
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
W/O SRINIVAS REDDY
3. SRI N VENKATESH REDDY
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
W/O LATE SRI R NARAYANA REDDY,
4. SMT N SUJATHA
Digitally signed
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
by A K W/O DR KESHAV REDDY
CHANDRIKA
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 5. SMT N SHASHIKALA
KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
W/O DR VISHWANATH
6. SMT N LAKSHMI
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
D/O LATE SRI R NARAYANA
SRI RAGHAVENDRA SAANU
7. SRI VENKATASWAMY REDDY
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
S/O LATE SRI DODDAMUNIAPPA
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:42812
WP No. 25638 of 2023
8. SRI V KODANDA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
S/O SRI VENKATASWAMY
9. SMT VEDAVATHY
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
W/O SRI V KODANDA REDDY
10. SRI M R MUNI REDDY
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS,
S/O LAE SRI RAMAIAH REDDY
11. SMT SARASWATHAMMA
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
W/O SRI M R MUNI REDDY
12. SMT M SUDHA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
W/O SRI M LOKESH
13. SMT MANJULA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
W/O SRI M LOKESH
14. SRI RAMA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
S/O SRI M R MUNI REDDY
15. SMT SHOBHA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
W/O SRI MR MUNI REDDY
16. SRI BHUVENDRA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
S/O SRI M R MUNI REDDY
PETITIONERS NO.1TO 16 ARE
REPRESENTED BY THEIR
GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER,
M/S SHYAMARAJU AND COMPANY (INDIA) PVT. LTD.
A COMPANY INCORPORATED
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:42812
WP No. 25638 of 2023
UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE
AT DIVYASHREE CHAMBERS,
A WING NO 11, O SHAUGNESSY ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 025,
REPTD. BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
SRI RAGHAVENDRA SAANU
17. M/S SHYAMARAJU AND COMPANY
INDIA PVT LTD, A COMPANY INCORPORATED
UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE
AT DIVYASHREE CHAMBERS,
A WING NO 11, O SHAUGNESSY ROAD,
BENGALURU 560025
REPTD. BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY
SRI RAGHAVENDRA SAANU
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. YESHU BABA R MISHRA.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
M/S HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT. LTD.,
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT 1956,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
SY NO 36/3, 37, 45/1, 45/2,
45/3,45/4,47/1,47/2,137, K NO 1540
KUNDALAHALLI VILLAGE BENGALURU - 560 037.
REPTD. BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
SRI OMESH RAINA
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. ANOOP HARANAHALLI, ADV. For
Sri G.L. VISHWANTH, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. SHIVISH KRISHNA, ADVOCATE)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
COMMON ORDER DATED 06/10/2023 PASSED BY LXXXIX ADDL
CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU IN COM. O.S.
-4-
NC: 2023:KHC:42812
WP No. 25638 of 2023
NO. 296/2020 AT ANNEXURE-A DISMISSING IA NO. 8 FILED
UNDER ORDER XI RULE 1(10) OF THE COMMERCIAL COURTS
ACT, 2015 AND IA NO. 9/2023 FILED UNDER ORDER XI RULE
1(10) OF THE COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, 2015 SEEKING
PRODUCTION OF ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS AND
CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW IA NO. 8 AT ANNEXURE-E AND IA NO.
9/2023 AT ANNEXURE-E1, RESPECTIVELY, AND GRANT AN
INTERIM ORDER TO STAY OF ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN
COM. O.S. NO. 296/2020 PENDING BEFORE THE LXXXIX ADDL
CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU UNTIL
DISPOSAL OF THE ABOVE WP.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, AND THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard learned senior counsel Sri.Anoop Haranahalli for petitioners and Sri.G.L.Vishwanath senior counsel for Sri.Shirish Krishna, learned counsel for respondent. Perused the writ petition papers.
2. The petitioners, defendants in Com.O.S.No.296/2020 on the file of the LXXXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore (Commercial Court) are before this Court, aggrieved by common order dated 06.10.2023 on I.A.Nos.8 and 9 filed under Order XI Rule 10 of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 seeking production of additional documents.
-5-
NC: 2023:KHC:42812 WP No. 25638 of 2023
3. Learned senior counsel Sri.Anoop Haranahalli for petitioners would contend that documents listed in I.A.No.9/2023 except Sl.No.3 i.e., e-mail dated 13.04.2019 with reply to the Key Points to Sale Deed sent by Defendant No.17 to Plaintiff are marked. But he submits that e-mail is marked as Ex.P39 and its attachments are marked as Ex.P11, Ex.P13 and Ex.P14 respectively. Learned counsel would submit that to mark all the 3 documents together as one document, present I.A.No.9/2023 is filed.
4. Learned senior counsel Sri.Vishwanath would submit that since the documents mentioned in I.A.No.9/2023 i.e., Sl.Nos.1, 2 and 4 are already on record and marked as exhibits, there is no need to consider the request of the petitioners/defendants. Further, he submits that he has no objection to mark document at Sl.No.3 in I.A.No.9/2023, since the same is omitted to be marked.
5. Taking note of the above submission, I.A.No.9/2023 insofar as marking of document No.3 stated therein i.e., -6- NC: 2023:KHC:42812 WP No. 25638 of 2023 e-mail dated 13.04.2019 with reply to the Key Points to Sale Deed sent by Defendant No.17 to Plaintiff is permitted to be marked, subject to other objections.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners with respect to I.A.No.8/2023 would submit that he would press I.A.No.8/2023 only in respect of documents No.1 and 2 mentioned therein and he would not press in respect of documents No.3 to 7. Further, the learned counsel submits that document No.1 i.e., Notarized copy of BDA Development Plan dated 30.12.2015 is already marked as Ex.P9. But, the petitioners/defendants intend to mark enlarged copy of the same. Further, learned counsel would submit that, he intends to produce extract of the second document i.e., Extract of portions of Master Development Plan only for the convenience of the Court.
7. Taking note of the above submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, I am of the view that when the BDA Development Plan dated 30.12.2015 is already on record as Ex.P9, there is no need to produce the same. -7-
NC: 2023:KHC:42812 WP No. 25638 of 2023 Enlarged copy or extract of the Master Development Plan once again for the convenience of court could be produced at the time of final arguments if necessary.
With the above, the writ petition stands disposed of. The Commercial Court shall endeavour for early disposal of the suit, with the co-operation of the parties to the suit as well as their respective counsel.
Sd/-
JUDGE MPK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36