Karnataka High Court
Mr M Ramanath Shenoy vs Mrs Padmini S Kamath on 22 July, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:27574
MFA No. 4816 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4816 OF 2025 (CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. MR. M. RAMANATH SHENOY
S/O LATE M. GOVIND RAO
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
RESIDING AT 967, J.L.B ROAD
LAXMIPURAM
MYSORE-570 004
2. MR. M. JAGANNATH SHENOI
S/O LATE M. GOVIND RAO
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
RESIDING AT 967, J.L.B ROAD
LAXMIPURAM
MYSORE-570 004
3. MR. M. GOPINATH SHENOY
S/O LATE M. GOVIND RAO
Digitally signed AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
by ANJALI M RESIDING AT 960/4, DIWAN'S ROAD
Location: High 3RD MAIN, LAXMIPURAM
Court of
Karnataka MYSORE-570 004
4. M/S. MANGALORE GANESH
BEEDI WORKS
PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS
REGISTERED OFFICE AT
VINOBA ROAD, MYSORE-570005
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. UDAY HOLLA, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W
SRI. KARAN JOSEPH, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:27574
MFA No. 4816 of 2025
HC-KAR
AND:
1. MRS. PADMINI S. KAMATH
W/O MR. SHASHIDHAR KAMATH N
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
RESIDING AT DOOR NO.2-1-30/1
GANESH KRIPA, CHILIMBI, URWA
MANGALORE-575 006
2. MRS. NALINI V. BHAT
W/O LATE MR. D. VITTAL BHAT
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
RESIDING AT GOVIND
BHARATHI NAGAR, BEHIND KSRTC
BEJAI, MANGALORE-575 004
3. HOTEL THIMMAPPA
GANESH BAGH
MANGALORE GANESH BEEDI
WORKS COMPOUND, LALBAGH
MANGALURU -575 003
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. D.R. RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W
SRI. AJAY PRABHU M, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1)
THIS MFA FILED UNDER SECTION 104 R/W ORDER 43
RULE 1(r) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16.06.2025
PASSED ON I.A.NO.II IN OS.NO. 88/2025 ON THE FILE OF THE
I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, AND CJM, MANGALURU,
DAKSHINA KANNADA, ALLOWING THE I.A.NO.II FILED UNDER
ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC.
THIS MFA HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT,
COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT,
DELIVERED/PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:27574
MFA No. 4816 of 2025
HC-KAR
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR)
This Misc. First appeal is filed Under Section 104 read
with Order 43 Rule 1(r) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
by the appellants assailing the legality and correctness of
the order dated 16.06.2025 passed by the learned I
Addl.Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mangaluru in OS
No.88/2025.
2. By the impugned order, the trial Court allowed
the application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC
by the respondent - plaintiff granting interim injunction
restraining the defendants Nos. 2 to 5 i.e. the appellants
herein, their representatives, successors, legal heirs,
assignees and anybody claiming through or under them by
way of temporary injunction from alienating, transferring,
mortgaging or in any way encumbering.
3. The appellants are aggrieved by the broad and
unqualified nature of the injunction, which, in their
submission, is devoid of legal foundation and ignores the
NC: 2025:KHC:27574
HC-KAR
passage of time, the law governing dissolved partnerships
and the settled principles of interim relief.
4. The genesis of the dispute arose through a
dissolution of partnership firm namely 'Mangaluru Ganesh
Beedi Works' originally constituted several decades ago
and in which late M.Govind Rao, the father of the
respondent is one of the partners. The said firm was
dissolved in the year 1987. Following the dissolution,
Company Case No.1/88 was initiated before this Court
seeking winding up of firm and disposal of its assets.
5. Pursuant to the judicial orders passed in those
proceedings, the assets of the firm were brought under the
control of this Court and were sold in public auction
conducted under the Court supervision. The sale was
confirmed through an order dated 22.12.1984. Appellant
nos. 2 and 3, along with one Mr.Vishwanath Rao
purchased the assets through this process. The sale was
transparent, publicly notified and legally sanctioned.
NC: 2025:KHC:27574
HC-KAR
Importantly, no objection was raised by any party
including the legal heirs of the erstwhile partners either at
the time of dissolution or during the sale. Several years
thereafter, in 2002, a new partnership firm bearing the
same name 'Mangaluru Ganesh Beedi Works' was
constituted with a fresh set of partners and was duly
registered under the relevant statutes. This new firm is
distinct entity unrelated to the dissolved firm except for
the similarity in nomenclature. Over the years, this new
firm has developed into large scale industrial enterprise
employing more than 50,000 workers and engaged in
commercial activities across multiple states.
6. The respondent, being the plaintiff in the
aforesaid suit is asserting that, she is a daughter of late
Sri M.Govinda Rao filed suit in O.S No. 88/2025 seeking
partition and separate possession of her 1/5th share in the
plaint properties. Her principle contention is that, the
present firm continues to use the assets and Goodwill of
NC: 2025:KHC:27574
HC-KAR
original firm and therefore, she is entitled to a share in the
schedule property as legal heir.
7. Along with the suit, the respondent-plaintiff
moved an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 seeking
interim relief by way of injunction against the appellants.
The trial Court, without thorough examination of the
complex legal and factual aspects, granted a blanket
injunction restraining the appellants from dealing with the
scheduled properties.
8. The appellants strongly opposed the interim
relief by contending that, respondent has not made out
any prima facie case. They placed reliance on the Court
approved sale deed dated 22.12.1994 and the
documentation relating to formation and registration of a
new firm in the year 2002. The appellants submit that the
respondent's claims are vague, belated and devoid of legal
merit. The learned Senior counsel for the appellants Sri
Uday Holla further submitted that, suit itself is hopelessly
NC: 2025:KHC:27574
HC-KAR
barred by limitation having filed over four decades after
dissolution of firm and three decades after sale of assets.
9. The learned Senior counsel pointed out that
respondent has not pleaded that the schedule properties
were part of Hindu Undivided Family (HUF). In the
absence of the such a plea, the claiming of undivided
coparcenery right does not arise. The learned Senior
Counsel further argued that, injunction order has caused
grave prejudice as it hampers functioning of flourishing
commercial entity, jeopardize employment of thousands of
workers and disrupts contractual and business obligations.
10. Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel
Sri. D.R.Ravishankar for the respondent submits that, the
appellants are very much concerned with 50,000 workers
and no concern to their own sister. As the plaintiff is the
sister of appellants, she is entitled for a share in the
properties under the provisions of HS Act. As there is no
division of properties, these appellants being the brothers
NC: 2025:KHC:27574
HC-KAR
have completely isolated the plaintiff and therefore, she
has filed a suit for partition. His submission is that, as the
plaintiff is the sister of the defendants and a Class-I heir of
Govind Rao is entitled to a share in the property.
According to his submission, the learned trial Court is right
in granting the interim order and he submits to dismiss the
appeal as the impugned order does not warrant
interference.
11. In view of rival submissions of both side, this
Court is called upon to examine, whether the trial Court
has properly has exercised its discretion while granting the
interim injunction. It is settled law that grant of interim
injunction must satisfy three cumulative tests - existence
of prima facie case, balance of convenience and likelihood
irreparable injury - as consistently reiterated by the
Hon'ble Apex Court most recently in Ramakant Ambala
Choksi vs. Harsih Ambalal Choksi and Others reported
in 2024 SCC Online SC 3538.
NC: 2025:KHC:27574
HC-KAR
12. In the present case, no prima facie case has
been made out by the respondent. The appellants have
placed on record unimpeached title documents having
lawful purchase of the properties in the year 1994 in a
court - supervisory auction. The respondent has not
challenged those proceedings nor has she placed on record
any document to establish her right, title or interest in the
properties. Her assertions rest solely on her lineage and an
assumption that the use of the old firm's name entitled her
to a share in the assets of new entity. This is neither
legally tenable nor factually supported.
13. Moreover there is no pleading whatsoever, that
the properties in question formed part of Hindu undivided
family (HUF). Absence of foundational plea, the suit for
partition must fail at the threshold. Partition cannot be
claimed in properties that are not coparcenaery or jointly
owned. The inordinate and unexplained delay of 40 years
in asserting rights over the properties is fatal to the
respondents claim. It is settled that, "delay and latches
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:27574
HC-KAR
disentitles a party from equitable relief. Delay reflect
inactivity and inaction on the part of a litigant - a litigant
who has forgotten the basis norms". A person who sleeps
over their right cannot be heard to complain a decades
later especially where commercial interests and third party
rights are involved.
14. The balance of convenience is overwhelmingly
in favour of appellants. Appellant no.4 is a large
commercial undertaking with 50,000 of workers and wide
ranging contractual obligations. An injunction halting
alienation or business operations causes disproportionate
hardship to the appellants and those dependent on them.
On the other hand, respondent's claim if ultimately found
valid, is one that can be adequately compensated by
monetary relief. Injunctive relief is not warranted where
the alleged harm is irreparable in nature. As held in
Ramakanth case Courts must refrain from granting
interity relief that has the effect of prejudging the suit or
inflicting irreversible damage on the defendants.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:27574
HC-KAR
15. The respondents reliance on the continued use
of name "Mangalore Ganesh Beedi works' is misconceived.
It is clarified in Smt.Rathnamma vs. B.A.Srinivasa
Gupta and Others reported in 1998 SCC online Kar.
662 that "mere identity of a trade name does not confer
proprietary rights' unless there is legal continuity or
succession". In this case, at this stage no such continuity
is established as new firm is independently registered,
partnership distinct in law and fact. While it is true that,
appellate courts must be circumspect in interfering with
discretionary interity orders. In the present case, the trial
Court has failed to appreciate foundational legal aspects
and granted a sweeping injunction without due scrutiny.
Such an order calls for reversal.
16. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this court
finds that, the order of the trial Court dated 16.6.2025 is
unsustainable in law and on facts. the respondent has
neither made out a prima facie case nor demonstrated
balance of convenience or irreparable harm.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:27574
HC-KAR
17. Accordingly the appeal deserves to be allowed.
Resultantly, the following:
ORDER
(i) This appeal is allowed.
(ii) Impugned order dated 16.6.2025 passed
by the learned I Addl. Senior Civil Judge
and CJM, Mangaluru in OS No.88/2025 is
set aside.
(iii) Consequentially, interim application under
Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC by the
respondent-plaintiff is dismissed.
(iv) It is clarified, that all the observations
made in the judgment are only for the
purpose of deciding this appeal and shall
not, in any manner influence final
adjudication in the suit before the trial
Court.
Under the circumstances no orders to costs.
Sd/-
(RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR)
JUDGE
