VARUN ENTERPRISES vs M/S B E CONTRACTS PRIVATE LIMITED — 1137/2023
Case under Order 7 Rule 1 R/w Section 26 Cpc. Status: EVIDENCE. Next hearing: 23rd March 2026.
Com.O.S. - Commercial Original Suit
CNR: KABC170023602023
Next Hearing
23rd March 2026
Filing Number
1150/2023
Filing Date
05-10-2023
Registration No
1137/2023
Registration Date
05-10-2023
Court
COMMERCIAL COURT,BENGALURU
Judge
1445-CCH-85 LXXXIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
VARUN ENTERPRISES
Adv. D P ASHOK
Respondent(s)
M/S B E CONTRACTS PRIVATE LIMITED
Mr.Sanjay Gujral
Mr.Siddharth Gujral
Mr.Karan Gujral
Vanita Gujral
Hearing History
Judge: 1445-CCH-85 LXXXIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
HEARING
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | EVIDENCE |
| 28-02-2026 | EVIDENCE |
| 11-02-2026 | HEARING |
| 23-01-2026 | EVIDENCE |
| 12-01-2026 | EVIDENCE |
Interim Orders
Summary The Bengaluru Commercial Court rejected the defendants' application filed under Order 12 Rule 6 of CPC seeking judgment based on alleged admissions made by the plaintiff's witness during cross-examination. The court held that mere stray oral admissions in cross-examination cannot form the basis for judgment dismissal, as such admissions must be evaluated alongside documentary evidence and corroborating circumstances. The court found that the plaintiff had made no unequivocal admissions in pleadings and that defendants could rely on these admissions during final arguments but not to obtain summary judgment at the fag end of proceedings. IA No.V filed by defendants under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC was rejected with no order as to costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The Bengaluru Commercial Court rejected the defendants' application filed under Order 12 Rule 6 of CPC seeking judgment based on alleged admissions made by the plaintiff's witness during cross-examination. The court held that mere stray oral admissions in cross-examination cannot form the basis for judgment dismissal, as such admissions must be evaluated alongside documentary evidence and corroborating circumstances. The court found that the plaintiff had made no unequivocal admissions in pleadings and that defendants could rely on these admissions during final arguments but not to obtain summary judgment at the fag end of proceedings. IA No.V filed by defendants under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC was rejected with no order as to costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts