M/S BRUNTON DEVELOPERS vs JSM CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED Advocate - Sneha Bhandary — 835/2023

Case under U/s 26 and Order 7 Rule 1 of Cpc. Status: ORDERS. Next hearing: 24th March 2026.

Com.O.S. - Commercial Original Suit

CNR: KABC170017162023

ORDERS

Next Hearing

24th March 2026

Filing Number

845/2023

Filing Date

21-07-2023

Registration No

835/2023

Registration Date

21-07-2023

Court

COMMERCIAL COURT,BENGALURU

Judge

1389-CCH-83 LXXXII ADDL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE

Acts & Sections

U/s 26 and Order 7 Rule 1 of Cpc

Petitioner(s)

M/S BRUNTON DEVELOPERS

Adv. RAGHURAM CADAMBI

M/S PRESTIGE CUISINE

Respondent(s)

JSM CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED Advocate - Sneha Bhandary

Hearing History

Judge: 1389-CCH-83 LXXXII ADDL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE

16-03-2026

ORDERS

06-03-2026

ORDERS

28-02-2026

ORDERS

24-02-2026

ORDERS

03-02-2026

ORDERS

Interim Orders

18-07-2024
Issue
02-08-2024
Exhibits
23-08-2024
Deposition
15-10-2024
Deposition
05-02-2025
Orders
28-02-2025
Exhibits
12-06-2025
Deposition
03-07-2025
Deposition
06-09-2025
Orders
11-11-2025
Exhibits

Summary: In Civil O.S. No. 835/2023 before the LXXXII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, the examination-in-chief of defendant Shashikanth Venkatesh (DW-1) was recorded on 11.11.2025. The defendant, a 64-year-old retired businessman, testified that he was unaware of property transfers from UB Group to the plaintiff, email correspondence, or related legal proceedings. The cross-examination was deferred at the plaintiff's advocate's request. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: In Civil O.S. No. 835/2023 before the LXXXII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, the examination-in-chief of defendant Shashikanth Venkatesh (DW-1) was recorded on 11.11.2025. The defendant, a 64-year-old retired businessman, testified that he was unaware of property transfers from UB Group to the plaintiff, email correspondence, or related legal proceedings. The cross-examination was deferred at the plaintiff's advocate's request. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

COMMERCIAL COURT,BENGALURU All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case