Ramachandra S/o Honnayya Naik vs Ms Biogen Wellness Private Limited — 25/2025
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 7rule1. Status: EVIDENCE. Next hearing: 10th June 2026.
O.S. - Original Suit
CNR: KAUK720002452025
Next Hearing
10th June 2026
Filing Number
24/2025
Filing Date
25-09-2025
Registration No
25/2025
Registration Date
25-09-2025
Court
PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KUMTA
Judge
904-SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, KUMTA
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Ramachandra S/o Honnayya Naik
Adv. Annapoorna S S
Shrikanth S/o Venkappa Naik
Smt Parvati W/o Shrikanth Naik
N S Pavitta Shrikant Naik Rep by Shrikanth S/o Venkappa Naik
Shravya D/o Shrikant Naik Rep by Shrikant S/o Venkappa Naik
Dayanand S/o Venkappa Naik
Nagesh S/o Venkata Naik
Smt Kalpana W/o Nagesh Naik
Diganth S/o Nagesh Naik Rep by Nagesh S/o Venkata Naik
Samith S/o Nagesh Naik Rep by Nagesh S/o Venkata Naik
Manjunath S/o Parameshwar Naik
Smt Parvathi W/o Parameshwar Naik
Laxminarayan S/o Maruthi Kumtakar
Smt Savita W/o Laxminarayan Kumtakar
Vinayak S/o Devaray Bhandari
Smt Anita W/o Vinayak Bhandari
Nagashri S/o Vinayak Bhandari Rep by Vinayak S/o Devaray Bhandari
Smt Shanti W/o Devaray Bhandari
Vithoba S/o Budhgayya Angadikeri
Respondent(s)
Ms Biogen Wellness Private Limited
Mangaldas Shetty @ N R Shetty
Soopta Mangaladas Shetty
K Surajeeth Shetty
Smt Rashmi W/o Surajeeth Shetty
Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change
Chief Secretaries Government of Karnataka Vidhanasouda Bengaluru
Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Forest, Environment and Biology Bangalore
Undersecretaries Revenue Department Government of Karnataka Vidhana Souda Bangalore
Undersecretaries Forest Department Government of Karnataka Bangalore
Additional Chief Secretary to the Government, Department of Forest, Environment and Biology Bangalore
Principal Chief Conservator of Forests Forest Chief Forest Office Bangalore
Undersecretaries Panchayat Rajya Department Government of Karnataka Bangalore
Deputy Commissioner Uttara Kannada District
Regional Director Environment Office Department of Forestry, Environment and Biology Karwar
Assistant Commissioner Kumta
Tahashildar Kumta
Conservator of Forest Canara Circle, Sirsi
Deputy Conservator of Forests Honnavar
Assistant Conservator of Forests Kumta
Range Officer Forest Department Kumta
Forest Officers Kumta
Deputy Director, Department of Tourism Uttar Kannda Karwar
Port Deputy Conservators Port Department Uttar Kannda
Chief Executive Officer Zilla Panchayath Uttar Kannda
Executive Officers Taluka Panchayath Kumta
PDO Gram Panchayath Kagal
Hearing History
Judge: 904-SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, KUMTA
EVIDENCE
ISSUES
ISSUES
ISSUES
ORDERS
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 02-06-2026 | EVIDENCE |
| 25-04-2026 | ISSUES |
| 10-04-2026 | ISSUES |
| 04-04-2026 | ISSUES |
| 25-03-2026 | ORDERS |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: O.S. No. 25/2025 Court: Senior Civil Judge & Prl. JMFC, Kumta, Uttara Kannada Date: 4 April 2026 Outcome: Interim Injunction Application (I.A. No. V) DISMISSED. The plaintiffs sought a temporary injunction to remove an iron gate placed by defendants 1-5 at survey number 135, blocking a public road villagers claim to have used since time immemorial for access to the seashore, temples, and graveyards. The court found the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case and that balance of convenience did not favor them. Key issues—whether the road is public, whether plaintiffs have ancestral usage rights, and whether alternative routes exist—remain matters for trial. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: O.S. No. 25/2025 Court: Senior Civil Judge & Prl. JMFC, Kumta, Uttara Kannada Date: 4 April 2026 Outcome: Interim Injunction Application (I.A. No. V) DISMISSED. The plaintiffs sought a temporary injunction to remove an iron gate placed by defendants 1-5 at survey number 135, blocking a public road villagers claim to have used since time immemorial for access to the seashore, temples, and graveyards. The court found the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case and that balance of convenience did not favor them. Key issues—whether the road is public, whether plaintiffs have ancestral usage rights, and whether alternative routes exist—remain matters for trial. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts