SRI M J PRADEEP KUMAR vs SRI SRINIVASA KANTHARAJE URS V S Advocate - RAGHAVENDRA K — COMAP/630/2025
Case under None Section 13. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 09th June 2026.
CNR: KAHC010775252025
Filing Number
COMAP/606/2025
Filing Date
26-11-2025
Registration No
COMAP/630/2025
Registration Date
26-11-2025
Judge
CHIEF JUSTICE , C.M. POONACHA
Coram
CHIEF JUSTICE , C.M. POONACHA
Bench Type
Division Bench
Judicial Branch
Judicial Section
Decision Date
09th June 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ALLOWED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
SRI M J PRADEEP KUMAR
Adv. AJIT P B
Respondent(s)
SRI SRINIVASA KANTHARAJE URS V S Advocate - RAGHAVENDRA K
MR M MANJUNATHA
MEGHANA
PALLAVI
Hearing History
Judge: CHIEF JUSTICE , C.M. POONACHA
NON-COMPLIANCE OF OFFICE-OBJNS FOR 1ST TIME
COMAP MATTER/S
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 02-12-2025 | NON-COMPLIANCE OF OFFICE-OBJNS FOR 1ST TIME |
| 07-04-2026 | COMAP MATTER/S |
Orders
Case Summary: COMAP 630/2025 The High Court of Karnataka set aside the lower court's judgment in favor of the cable TV business lessor. The appellant (defendant in original suit) successfully challenged the Commercial Court's order requiring him to hand over the cable TV business, equipment, and subscribers, along with ₹3,90,000 in arrears and ₹50,000/month damages. The High Court found the plaintiff's suit was barred by limitation, as the three-year limitation period commenced on 30.04.2012 when the original lease expired, and no valid extension of the lease deed was established—oral claims of extension could not modify the written agreement under Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: COMAP 630/2025 The High Court of Karnataka set aside the lower court's judgment in favor of the cable TV business lessor. The appellant (defendant in original suit) successfully challenged the Commercial Court's order requiring him to hand over the cable TV business, equipment, and subscribers, along with ₹3,90,000 in arrears and ₹50,000/month damages. The High Court found the plaintiff's suit was barred by limitation, as the three-year limitation period commenced on 30.04.2012 when the original lease expired, and no valid extension of the lease deed was established—oral claims of extension could not modify the written agreement under Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts