Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 20532
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR, J
STOVE KRAFT LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
MR. KALPESH JAIN, MR. PRASHANT KUMAR JAIN, SREE MUKESH MARKETING, PIGEON INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. – Respondent
REVIEW PETITION NO. 301 OF 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI. DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SRI. SHUJATH AHMED
For the Respondents: SRI. S. S., NAGANAND, SRI. SANJAY H SETHIYA
The court emphasized timely intervention to protect parties' rights from prejudicial delays in ongoing legal proceedings.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order XLVII Rule 1 R/W Section 114 - Review petition regarding delay caused in lower proceedings - Petitioner seeks liberty to file fresh interlocutory applications for temporary injunction due to the prolonged pending nature of suits - Petitioner’s rights must not be prejudiced by delays, thus petition disposed granting liberty to file applications to be considered in accordance with law. (Paras 1, 2)
(B) Court proceedings - Acknowledges memorandum outlining delays and associated legal consequences, highlighting the necessity of ensuring justice and expedience in legal processes. (Para 1)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner filed a review petition to address delays in ongoing suits, asserting the necessity of immediate remedies to protect their interests, noting complications from the respondents’ actions.
Findings of Court:
The petition was ultimately disposed of with directions for the trial court to consider future applications under specified legal provisions expeditiously within a month.
Issues: The core issue involved the impact of delays on the petitioner’s rights and the condition for addressing these in formal applications.
Ratio Decidendi: The court recognized the implications of procedural delays on a party’s rights, emphasizing the need for timely judicial relief.
Result: Petition disposed of with liberty granted.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court allows future applications for relief. (Para 2) |
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR REVIEW PETITION NO. 301 OF 2024 BETWEEN:
STOVE KRAFT LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT 1956, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SUSHMITA DAS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.81/1, MEDAMARANHALLI, HAROHALLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT – 562 112 BRANCH OFFICE AT NO.861, VAJARAHALLI, TALAGHATTAPURA, KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 076 EXCLUSIVE STORE AT PIGEON NO.37, ADAMS CORNER, COLES ROAD, Digitally signed FRAZER TOWN, by CHANDANA BENGALURU – 560 005 B M …PETITIONER Location: H igh (BY SRI. DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SENIOR COUNSEL APPEARING FOR Court of SRI. SHUJATH AHMED, ADVOCATE)
Karnataka AND:
1. MR. KALPESH JAIN PARTNER AT M/S SREE MUKESH MARKETING HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.1, RAJA ANNAMALAI ROAD, PURUSAWALKAM, CHENNAI – 600 084
2. MR. PRASHANT KUMAR JAIN, PARTNER AT M/S SREE MUKESH MARKETING HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.1, RAJA ANNAMALAI ROAD, PURUSAWALKAM, CHENNAI – 600 084
3. SREE MUKESH MARKETING, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.1, RAJA ANNAMALAI ROAD, PURUSAWALKAM, CHENNAI – 600 084 REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS, KALPESH JAIN AND MR. PRASHANT JAIN
4. PIGEON INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT 1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO 66, VYSARPADI O-OP INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, ERUKANCHERI HIGH ROAD, CHENNAI – 600 039 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, MR PRASHANTH JAIN …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S. S., NAGANAND, SENIOR COUNSEL APPEARING FOR SRI. SANJAY H SETHIYA, ADVOCATE)
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLVII RULE
1 R/W SECTION 114 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 PRAYING TO REVIEW THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 23.05.2023 IN M.F.A.NO.2973/2023 (ANNEXURE-A) ON THE FILE OF THIS HON’BLE COURT AND CONFIRM THE ORDER OF INJUCTION GRANTED BY THE TRIAL COURT TO CONSIDER THE PETITIONER’S APPLICATIONS UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 CPC (I.A.NOs.1 AND 2) IN O.S.NO.7169/2022.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a memo which reads as under:
MEMO FILED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER The undersigned counsel for the Petitioner most respectfully submits that the Petitioner preferred the present Review Petition on account of the delay caused by the Defendants in the proceedings bearing OS Nos. 6765/2022 and 7169/2022, pending before the Hon'ble City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CH 10). As a result, the above-mentioned suits have continued beyond 3 months and have been pending for over 2 years. This was never in the contemplation of the Plaintiff as the understanding was that the entire suit would be disposed off within the time frame of three months. In addition, the Respondents have filed a suit seeking to injunct the Plaintiff as well before the Commercial Court in Com OS No. 1076/2024. The above circumstances have made it necessary that the rights of the Plaintiff are not prejudiced. In light of these changed circumstances, the Petitioner seeks liberty to file fresh Interlocutory Applications under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the Respondents in OS
7169/2022 for grant of temporary injunction.
It is therefore humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to take the present memo on record and dispose of the matter with liberty to the Petitioner to file fresh Interlocutory Applications under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the Respondents in OS 7169/2022, which applications the Trial Court may take up expeditiously without being influenced by any observation or order of this Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience.
2. In view of the memo, the petition is disposed of reserving liberty in f
