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.

Case disposed

CNR: KAHC010775252025

Filing Number

COMAP/606/2025

Filing Date

26-Nov-2025

Registration No

COMAP/630/2025

Registration Date

26-Nov-2025

Judge

Chief Justice , C.M. Poonacha

Coram

Chief Justice , C.M. Poonacha

Bench Type

Division Bench

Judicial Branch

Judicial Section

Decision Date

09-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED

Last updated 11-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

None Section 13

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SRI M J PRADEEP KUMAR

    Adv. AJIT P B

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.SRI SRINIVASA KANTHARAJE URS V S Advocate - RAGHAVENDRA K

  2. 2.MR M MANJUNATHA

  3. 3.MEGHANA

  4. 4.PALLAVI

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 09-Jun-2026

    Chief Justice,c.m. PoonachaView PDF

    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.

  3. 07-Apr-2026

    Comap Matter/S

    Chief Justice , C.M. Poonacha

  4. 02-Dec-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 26-Nov-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. COMAP/630/2025

casestatus.in Summary

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.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case