Karnataka High Court
Smt. Lakshmamma vs M/S. Huawei Technologies India Private ... on 7 September, 2022
Author: G.Narendar
Bench: G.Narendar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.NARENDAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
COMAP NO.141/2022
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
W/O LATE. SRI. R NARAYANA REDDY,
2. SMT. HEMAVATHY
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
W/O. SRI SRINIVAS REDDY
3. SRI. NO VENKATESH REDDY
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
S/O. LATE. MR. R. NARAYANA REDDY,
4. SMT. N SUJATHA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
W/O. DR. KESHAV REDDY,
5. SMT. N SHASHIKALA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
W/O. DR. VISHWANATH
6. SMT. N LAKSHMI
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
D/O. LATE. SRI. R. NARAYANA,
7. SRI. VENKATSWAMY REDDY
AGED ABOUT 89 YEARS,
S/O. LATE. SRI. DODDAMUNIYAPPA,
2
8. SRI. V KODANDA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
S/O SRI. VENKATASWAMY REDDY,
9. SMT. VEDAVATHY
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
W/O. SRI. V KODANDA REDDY,
10. SRI. M R MUNI REDDY
AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS,
S/O. LATE. SRI. RAMAIAH REDDY,
11. SMT. SARASWATHAMMA
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
W/O. SRI. M R MUNI REDDY,
12. SMT. M SUDHA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
W/O. SRI. T ANAN,
13. SMT. MANJULA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
W/O. SRI. M LOKESH,
14. SRI. RAMA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
S/O. SRI. M R MUNI REDDY,
15. SMT. SHOBHA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
D/O. SRI. M R MUNI REDDY,
16. SRI. BHUVENDRA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
S/O. SRI. M R MUNI REDDY,
APPELLANTS NO 1 TO 16 ARE
REPRESENTED BY THEIR
GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
M/S. SHYAMARAJU AND COMPANY (INDIA)
PRIVATE LIMITED, A COMPANY
INCORPORATED UNDER THE
3
COMPANIES ACT, 1956,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
DIVYASREE CHAMBERS A WING,
#11, A WING, O'SHAUGNESSY ROAD,
BENGALURU 560025,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR,
MS. P SHYAMARAJU.
17. M/S. SHYAMARAJU AND COMPANY (INDIA)
PRIVATE LIMITED,
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE
COMPANIES ACT, 1956,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
DIVYASREE CHAMBERS A WING,
#11, A WING, O'SHAUGNESSY ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560025,
REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
Mr. BHASKAR RAJU.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SR. COUNSEL FOR
YESHU BABA R.MISHRA, ADV.)
AND:
M/S. HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES INDIA
PRIVATE LIMITED
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE
COMPANIES ACT, 1956,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
SY NOS. 36/3,37,45/1,45/2,45/3,45/4,
47/1,47/2,137,K.NO.1540,
KUNDALAHALLI VILLAGE,
BENGALURU 560037,
REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY,
MR. OMESH RAINA
... RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. SHOBHA PATIL, ADV.)
4
THIS COMAP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 13(1)(A) OF THE
COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, 2015, R/W ORDER 43 RULE 1(R) OF
THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 02/12/2021 PASSED ON I.A.NO.2
FILED BY RESPONDENT / PLAINTIFF IN COM.O.S.NO.296/2020
BY THE LXXXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SEXSSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU ETC.
THIS COMAP COMING ON FOR "ADMISSION" THIS DAY,
G.NARENDAR J, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard the learned Senior counsel Sri. Ashok Haranahalli, along with Sri. Yeshu Baba R. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants/defendants.
2. The appeal is directed by the defendants against the order passed by the Commercial Court on I.A.No.2 preferred under Section 151 of CPC in Com.O.S.No.296/2020 wherein, the plaintiff had sought for an interlocutory relief praying to dispense with affixing of the official seal of the plaintiff-company on the plaint and vakalathnama, which application came to be allowed. Aggrieved, the defendants are before this Court. 5
3. It is submitted by learned Senior counsel that in the interregnum, the plaintiff have indeed complied with the requirement and have affixed the company seal and hence, he would submit that the instant appeal would not survive for consideration.
4. The submission of learned Senior counsel is placed on record.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as not surviving for consideration.
In view of the dismissal of the main appeal, pending interlocutory application, if any, does not survive for consideration. Hence, disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE dn/-
CT-HR