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

ORDERS

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

U/s 26 and Order 7 Rule 1 of Cpc

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

18-03-2026

ORDERS

06-03-2026

ORDERS

25-02-2026

ORDERS

12-02-2026

ORDERS

12-01-2026

ORDERS

Interim Orders

06-03-2025
Orders
06-03-2026
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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

COMMERCIAL COURT,BENGALURU All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case