SPECIALITY RESTAURANTS LIMITED vs KURIEN THOMAS Advocate - Srihari S — 1443/2024
Case under U/s 26 and Order 7 Rule 1 of Cpc. Status: ORDERS. Next hearing: 04th April 2026.
Com.O.S. - Commercial Original Suit
CNR: KABC170028382024
Next Hearing
04th April 2026
Filing Number
1446/2024
Filing Date
28-10-2024
Registration No
1443/2024
Registration Date
28-10-2024
Court
COMMERCIAL COURT,BENGALURU
Judge
1389-CCH-83 LXXXII ADDL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
SPECIALITY RESTAURANTS LIMITED
Adv. Chintan Chinnappa
Respondent(s)
KURIEN THOMAS Advocate - Srihari S
MOHAMED OMAR FAROOK
Adv. Kumar and Kumar
NASIMA FAROOK SUNDKA
Adv. Kumar and Kumar
THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED
Adv. FRANCIES XAVIER
Hearing History
Judge: 1389-CCH-83 LXXXII ADDL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE
ORDERS
ORDERS
ORDERS
ORDERS
ORDERS
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 18-03-2026 | ORDERS |
| 06-03-2026 | ORDERS |
| 25-02-2026 | ORDERS |
| 12-02-2026 | ORDERS |
| 12-01-2026 | ORDERS |
Interim Orders
Summary: The court dismissed the plaintiff's (Speciality Restaurants Limited) Interim Application No. 5 seeking a mandatory injunction to permit renovation, repairs, alterations, and modifications to leased premises on Church Street, Bengaluru. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case, the balance of convenience did not favor the plaintiff, and no irreparable loss would result from denial. Additionally, the lease agreement explicitly required prior written consent from the lessor for any structural changes, a prior status quo order already restrained such works, and the relief sought was essentially the main relief disguised as interim relief—which is impermissible in law. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The court dismissed the plaintiff's (Speciality Restaurants Limited) Interim Application No. 5 seeking a mandatory injunction to permit renovation, repairs, alterations, and modifications to leased premises on Church Street, Bengaluru. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case, the balance of convenience did not favor the plaintiff, and no irreparable loss would result from denial. Additionally, the lease agreement explicitly required prior written consent from the lessor for any structural changes, a prior status quo order already restrained such works, and the relief sought was essentially the main relief disguised as interim relief—which is impermissible in law. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts