Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 3388 Kant
Judgement Date : 5 February, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:4896
RFA No. 947 of 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 947 OF 2008 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
MICROLAND (INDIA) LIMITED,
220, 2ND FLOOR, JAIPUR TOWERS,
OPP.AIRMI ROAD, JAIPUR-302 001.
REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR
MR.RAVINDRA SINGH BHANDARI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SURAJ SAMPATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
MICROLAND LIMITED,
NO.58, 80 FT. ROAD,
KORAMANGALA 7,
BANGALORE-560 095.
REP. BY ITS COMPANY SECRETARY.
Digitally signed ...RESPONDENT
by ANNAPURNA (BY MISS SHIVANI SHRIVASTAVA, ADVOCATE FOR
G SRI ANUBHA SRIVASTAVA, ADVOCATE)
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka THIS RFA IS FILED U/S 96 R/W ORDER XLI RULE (1) OF
THE CPC 1908 AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED
03.06.2008 PASSED IN OS NO. 10268/96 ON THE FILE OF THE
XIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, MAYOHALL UNIT, BANGALORE,
(CCH-22), PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT
INJUNCTION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:4896
RFA No. 947 of 2008
JUDGMENT
Learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent are
present.
2. The defendant before the trial Court in
O.S.No.10268/1996 had approached this Court in appeal being
aggrieved by the judgment passed by the XIII Additional City
Civil Judge, Mayohall, Bengaluru dated 03.06.2008, whereby,
the trial Court had decreed the suit restraining the defendant
from using trade mark MICROLAND and dismissed the claim in
respect of the accounts and mandatory injunction.
3. Now, a joint memo has been filed by the learned
counsel for the appellant and the respondent stating that the
appellant/defendant's company has officially changed its name
from M/s. Microland (India) Ltd. to M/s. Microzone
Communications Limited and the certificate of the incorporation
has been enclosed to the said memo. It is stated that in view of
the change of name of the appellant-company, the present
appeal do not survive for consideration.
4. It is submitted that the respondent-company has
not filed any appeal or cross-objections in respect of rejection
NC: 2024:KHC:4896
of their claim in respect of mandatory injunction as well as
accounts.
5. In that view of the matter, the appeal do not
survive as it has become infructuous. Consequently, the joint
memo filed by the parties is taken on record and the appeal is
disposed of as it has become infructuous.
Sd/-
JUDGE
NR/-
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!