Karnataka High Court
Mr.Rachappa Sathish Kumar vs M/S Eaglesight Media Private Limited ... on 25 June, 2025
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
1
Reserved on : 13.06.2025
Pronounced on : 25.06.2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION No.13365 OF 2025 (GM - CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. MR.RACHAPPA SATHISH KUMAR
S/O RACHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY AND DIRECTOR,
M/S.BTV KANNADA PRIVATE LIMITED
RESIDING AT NO.14/4, 2ND FLOOR,
13TH CROSS, 8TH MAIN ROAD, MALLESHWARAM,
BENGALURU - 560 003.
2. M/S BTV KANNADA PRIVATE LIMITED
CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO. 15,
1ST MAIN ROAD, J LINGAIAH ROAD,
SHESHADRIPURAM,
BENGALURU - 560 020.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
DIRECTOR AND AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
MR. RACHAPPA SATHISH KUMAR
S/O RACHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
INCORPORATED COMPANY REGISTERED
2
UNDER COMPANIES ACT.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI D.R.RAVISHANKAR, SR.ADVOCATE A/W
SRI KASHINATH J.D., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. M/S.EAGLESIGHT MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (ESMPL)
CHAIRMAN AND DIRECTOR
MR. ASHWIN MAHENDRA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO. 301/10,
36TH CROSS, 7TH 'C' MAIN ROAD,
JAYANAGAR 4TH BLOCK,
BENGALURU - 560 011.
2. GOOGLE LLC
UNIT NO. 26, THE EXECUTIVE CENTRE,
LEVEL 8, DLF CENTRE, SANSADMARG,
CONNAUGHT PLACE,
NEW DELHI - 110 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS EDITOR-IN-CHIEF.
3. META PLATFORMS INC.
UNIT 28 AND 29,
THE EXECUTIVE CENTRE,
LEVEL 18, DLF CYBER CITY, BUILDING NO. 5,
TOWER A, PHASE III,
GURGAON-122 002, INDIA.
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EDITOR.
4. FACEBOOK INDIA
UNIT NOS. 1203 AND 1204,
LEVEL 12, BUILDING NO. 20,
RAHEJA MINDSPACE, CYBERABAD,
MADAPUR, HITECT CITY,
3
HYDERABAD - 560 081.
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EDITOR.
5. YAHOO INDIA TORREY PINES'
EMBASSY GOLD LINKS BUSINESS PARK,
OFF INDIRANAGAR-KORAMANGALA,
INTERMEDIATE RING ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 071.
REPRESENTED BY ITS EDITOR-IN-CHIEF.
6. YOUTUBE LLC
RESIDENT GRIEVANCE OFFICER FOR YOUTUBE
GOOGLE LLC-INDIA LIAISON OFFICE UNIT NO. 26,
THE EXECUTIVE CENTER, LEVEL 8,
DLF CENTRE, SANSAD MARG,
CONNAUGHT PLACE,
NEW DELHI - 110 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EDITOR.
7. M/S. WHATS APP
FLAT NO. 1, 3RD FLOOR,
1BHK, PINK ROSE APPT. SARFABAD,
SECTOR-23,
GAUTAM BUDDHA NAGAR - 201 301, UP.
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EDITOR.
8. TWITTER INDIA
RMZ INFANTRY, B, OLD MADRAS ROAD,
SADANANDANAGAR,
BENNIGANAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 010.
REPRESENTED BY ITS EDITOR-IN-CHIEF.
9. INSTAGRAM
UNIT NO. 28 AND 29,
THE EXECUTIVE CENTER,
LEVEL 18, DLF CYBER CITY,
BUILDING NO. 5, TOWER A, PHASE II,
GURGAON - 122 002.
4
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EDITOR.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K.N.PHANINDRA, SR.ADVOCATE A/W
SRI ARNAV A.BAGALWADI, ADVOCATE FOR R-1;
SRI VARUN PATHAK, ADVOCATE FOR R-4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR
ENTIRE RECORDS PERTAINS TO O.S. NO. 2499/2025 PENDING ON
THE FILE OF LIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU CITY, BENGALURU; QUASH THE ADD-INTERIM
INJUNCTION PASSED IN O.S. NO. 2499/2025 DATED 04.04.2025
AND CORRECTED ON 07.04.2025 PENDING ON THE FILE OF LIX
ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY,
BENGALURU AS PER ANNEXURE-A AS ILLEGAL CONSEQUENTLY
PASS AN ORDER TO DISMISS I.A. NO. II FILED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF IN O.S. NO. 2499/2025 TO MEET THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 13.06.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
5
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CAV ORDER
The petitioners are before this Court calling in question an
order dated 04-04-2025 and corrected order dated 07-04-2025
passed by the LIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City in O.S.No.2499 of 2025 issuing ad-interim ex-parte
Temporary Injunction restraining the defendants in the suit from
airing the programme of the 2nd petitioner.
2. Heard Sri D.R. Ravishankar, learned senior counsel
appearing for the petitioners, Sri K.N.Phanindra, learned senior
counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri Varun Pathak,
learned counsel appearing for respondent 4.
3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:-
The 1st petitioner is a journalist by profession and is said to be
running a social media in the logo Btv Kannada for broadcasting
and publication. The 1st petitioner is one of the Directors of the 2nd
petitioner-M/s Btv Kannada Private Limited ('the Company' for
short). The Company earns revenue out of the social media page
6
on the logo Btv Kannada. The social media page was suddenly
blocked and removed in the 3rd week of April, 2025 by all social
media platforms through their social media Administrator without
any reference, but vaguely referring to an order of the civil Court. It
is then, the petitioners went in search of the said civil suit and
come to know that there was a suit in O.S.No.2499 of 2025
instituted by rival claimant against whom several litigations are
pending and in the said suit there is an order of restraint of use or
airing of Btv Kannada in their respective social media page. Calling
in question the order dated 04-04-2025 passed by the concerned
Court, the petitioners are before this Court on the score that ad-
interim injunction is granted under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 by
the civil Court without even making the petitioners, a party, while
making every other social media platform a party.
4. The learned senior counsel Sri D.R.Ravishankar appearing
for the petitioners would vehemently contend that the plaint
averments if noticed it is full of allegations against the petitioners. A
restraint order is secured at the hands of the concerned Court by
pleading everything that was against the petitioners which the
7
petitioners were to defend. Therefore, there is violation of principles
of natural justice and violation of Order XXXIX Rule 3 of the CPC, is
the submission of the learned senior counsel.
5. Per contra, the learned senior counsel Sri K.N. Phanindra
representing the 1st respondent/plaintiff takes this Court through an
earlier litigation of the year 2022 in which the 2nd petitioner has
suffered a restraint order. He would submit that this is only a
continuation of that restraint order. These petitioners need not have
been parties before the concerned Court, as the prayer that was
sought in the suit was to restrain social media platforms from a
particular action. It did not concern these petitioners. Therefore, on
the ground that they were not made parties, the order cannot be
interfered with.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions
made by the respective learned senior counsel and have perused
the material on record.
8
7. The 1st petitioner is a journalist and the averment is that
he is journalist of a considerable repute. The 2nd petitioner is the
registered company under the Companies Act, 2013 incorporated in
the name and style of Btv Kannada Private Limited. The dispute
between the 1st respondent and the petitioners galore. A suit in
O.S.No.584 of 2022 is instituted by the 1st respondent where the
2nd petitioner is made a party/defendant and an interim injunction
is obtained in favour of the plaintiff. The matter has travelled up to
the Apex Court, where it is stated to be pending consideration of
the orders that were passed in O.S.No.584 of 2022. Yet another
suit is filed by the 1st respondent in O.S.No.7854 of 2022 seeking
damages of ₹29/- crores in which the 2nd petitioner/Company and
its earlier Directors are made parties. In both the civil suits
aforesaid, which are instituted by the 1st respondent, the 2nd
petitioner is arrayed as a defendant with several allegations. Writ
petitions before this Court are also filed with regard to trade mark
violations inter alia and are pending.
8. When things stood thus, it appears the 1st respondent files
O.S.No.2499 of 2025 in which there are 8 defendants viz., (i)
9
Google LLC; (ii) Meta Platforms Inc.; (iii) Facebook India; (iv)
Yahoo India Torrey Pines; (v) YouTube LLC; (vi) M/s Whats App;
(vii) Twitter India; and (viii) Instagram. The contention of the
petitioners is, 2nd petitioner in particular is not made a party, while
the entire narration is on the 2nd petitioner. It, therefore, becomes
necessary to notice the plaint averments. They read as follows:
".... .... ....
3. It is submitted that the plaintiff is the Chairman and
Director of the Company by name M/s Eaglesight Media Private
Limited, for which the Managing Director and another Director is
one Mr. Gangadharappa Munindra Kumar @ G.M. Kumar. The
said plaintiff Company in short (ESMPL) is the actual owner of
Btv Kannada News Channel and also owns the Trademark
certificates for its Logos and Contents and this Managing
Director/Director who proclaimed himself to be an ace journalist
started misappropriating funds of the plaintiff company and
floated two dubious companies by name M/s EAGLESIGHT
TELEMEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED and M/s Btv KANNADA PRIVATE
LIMITED which are the root cause for doing YELLOW
JOURNALISM and are misusing the LOGOS and contents of the
Plaintiff Company and time and again attempting to loop the
Plaintiff company into one or the other cases which is time and
again becoming a trauma for the Plaintiff Company and its
Chairman receiving one or the other Legal Notices from persons
who are being targeted by the two dubious companies which are
doing defamatory programmes by misusing the logos of Btv
Kannada News Channel Owned by the Plaintiff Company.
Certified copies of the trade mark certificates marked in
O.S.No.7854 of 2022 along with colour copies are enclosed as
per "Documents 1 to 3".
4. The Plaintiff submits that, the above-named
defendants were informed through Notices and reminders
10
informing them not to PROVIDE PLATFORMS TO
EAGLESIGHT TELEMEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED or BTV
KANNADA PRIVATE LIMITED and also to BLOCK THE
CONTENTS SHARED BY THE ABOVE TWO COMPANIES
MISUSING THE CONTENTS HAVING THE LOGOS OF THE
Btv through their platforms such as Facebook, You Tube
etc., copy of the Special Notification issued by the
Plaintiff Company, copy of the legal notices and
reminders issued to the defendants companies are
enclosed as per "Documents 4 to 6".
5. The plaintiff submits that, even after issuance of such
notices and reminders, the above-named Defendants are
allowing the two dubious companies to telecast their
programmes through the medium of the Defendants and which
are being defamatory in nature and such people against whom
such programmes are made by the two dubious companies are
issuing Legal Notices to the Plaintiff Company in the name of
Chairman/Director who is remotely not aware of any of these
programmes. Three legal notices received by the plaintiff
company from three different parties are enclosed as
"Documents 7 to 9".
6. The plaintiff submits that, it has become a menace to
the plaintiff in giving reply notices to every person who is
sending such Legal notice making Plaintiff company and its
Director/Chairman as party (who is innocent) to make the
person know the situation and begging him to delete the Plaintiff
as a party from any such case, where they went to prosecute
the plaintiff company. Copy of the reply notice given by the
plaintiff to every person who has issued legal notices against
him are enclosed as per "Document No. 10 to 12".
7. It is submitted that if the Defendants stop giving their
medium as support to the programmes what the two dubious
companies are telecasting, this will act as a permanent solution
for the Plaintiff Company and also the Defendants in one or the
other way legally recognizing the Logo certificates issued to the
plaintiff company by the Trade Marks Registry, Government of
India.
8. If the Defendants are not restrained with an Injunction
Order, the Plaintiff company and its Chairman will be put to
11
great hardship and loss and also his fundamental right of life will
seriously get affected due to the Defamatory notices which are
served against him for no fault committed by him.
10. The two dubious Companies M/s Eaglesight
Telemedia Private Limited and M/s Btv Kannada Private
Limited with the sole intention to increase their TRPs are
indulging in the act of publishing and telecasting the
news without evaluating the resultant damage to the
reputation of the person/s involved.
11. It is submitted that the act and omissions of the
two dubious Companies M/s Eaglesight Telemedia Private
Limited and M/s Btv Kannada Private Limited are volatile
of all the norms and cannons of responsible journalism.
Such conduct has been actuated by malice, against the
Plaintiff. The act of the two dubious Companies M/s
Eaglesight Telemedia Private Limited and M/s Btv
Kannada Private Limited tantamount to blatant scandal
mongering and are per se defamatory and they seek to
derogate the Plaintiff and harm his impeccable reputation
in the public estimation. The Defendants have specifically
failed to abide by the minimum moral standards of ethics
even after receiving the Notices. There is complete failure
to comply with the etiquette and ethical standards
expected from them.
12. It is submitted that the Plaintiff is living in a
society which is far ahead in technology and it would not
be a difficult task to the two dubious Companies M/s
Eaglesight Telemedia Private Limited and M/s Btv
Kannada Private Limited to telecast/publish the alleged
morphed recording to earn TRPs. However, if the other
Defendants are allowed to do so, then the same would
result in loss of reputation of the Plaintiff and would have
far reaching consequences.
13. It is submitted that the freedom of speech guaranteed
under Article 19 does not mean absolute right to say or write or
telecast anything without regard to any person's honour and
reputation. It is humbly submitted that the so-called
unrestricted Freedom to the media houses as well as web
12
portals will have large and irreversible negative impact on the
life of thousands.
14. it is submitted that, if the Defendants do not honour
the request of the plaintiff, the two dubious Companies M/s
Eaglesight Telemedia Private Limited and M/s Btv Kannada
Private Limited will create contents and make defamatory
programmes by misusing the logos of the plaintiff company, and
when uploaded through the Defendants platforms, the Plaintiffs'
reputation would again hit rock bottom. If such programmes are
given platforms by the Defendants, it will result in irreparable
damage to the respect, honour, dignity and status of the
plaintiff in the society.
The Web Portal misused by the two Dubious Companies through
which programmes are being uploaded are provided as under:
1. Facebook Page ID - 798350103528874, page created
July, 2014
https://facebook.com/btvnewslive/
("Document No.13" is enclosed for the kind perusal of
this Hon'ble Court).
2. YouTube Channel joined 25th May 2016
https://goo.gl/7dTDOS
www.youtube.com/@Btvnewskannada
("Document No.14" is enclosed for the kind perusal of
this Hon'ble court).
3. X (Twitter) joined May 2014 - x.com/btvnewslive
("Document No.15" is enclosed for the kind perusal of
this Hon'ble Court).
4. Instagram joined April 2015 - "btvnews"
https://www.Instagram.com/btvnews/?igsh=
YwRmanJ2M W10dGs
("Document No.16" is enclosed for the kind perusal of
this Hon'ble Court).
5. Website - https://btvkannada.com
(GOOGLE IS PROVIDING THE PLATFORM)
13
6. WhatsApp No. - 9731406666
(WHEN CHECKED IN TRUE CALLER THIS NUMBER IS
SHOWN AS Btv TV).
7. Google+ "plus.google.com/btvnewslive"
(GOOGLE IS PROVIDING PLATFORM)
Copy of the MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING
RTI REPLY LETTER IS ENCLOSED AS PER "DOCUMENT NO.17".
15. It is submitted that the plaintiff would suffer severe
defamation, harassment and mental agony at the hand of the
said two dubious Companies M/s Eaglesight Telemedia Private
Limited and M/s Btv Kannada Private Limited who are using the
platforms of the Defendants.
16. The plaintiff submits that, if this suit is decreed no
hardship will be caused to the Defendants and on the other
hand if the prayer is rejected the two dubious Companies M/s
Eaglesight Telemedia Private Limited and M/s Btv Kannada
Private Limited will have the opportunity to ruin all dignity and
respect earned in the several years of service by the Plaintiff.
... ... ..."
(Emphasis added)
A perusal at the entire plaint averments would clearly indicate that
every paragraph is dedicated for making allegations against the 2nd
petitioner. All the litigations between the two are narrated. On the
basis of the said pleadings what is the prayer that is sought is
necessary to be noticed. It reads as follows:
"WHEREFORE, in the light of the above stated facts, it is
most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass
a judgment and decree for Prohibitory Injunction
14
(1) Restraining the Defendants or any other persons
claiming under them, from providing platform to
the two dubious Companies M/s Eaglesight
Telemedia Private Limited and M/s Btv Kannada
Private Limited in posting or circulating
programmes by misusing the Logos and
Trademarks which belong to the Plaintiff company
or expressing in any manner anything in which the
Logos of Btv Kannada News Channel appear by
granting Prohibitory Injunction.
(2) Direct the Defendants herein to forthwith suspend/
delete the links/pages provided in their platforms,
to these two dubious Companies M/s Eaglesight
Telemedia Private Limited and M/s Btv Kannada
Private Limited as they are misusing the trademark
of the plaintiff herein, though these two dubious
companies are not permission holders in respect of
any private TV Channel, which is confirmed by the
Ministry of Information and Broadcasting,
Government of India."
(Emphasis added)
The prayer is to restrain the defendants who are noticed
hereinabove from providing platform to two dubious companies -
(i) M/s Eaglesight Telemedia Private Limited and (ii)M/s Btv
Kannada Private Limited. The 2nd prayer is to direct the defendants
to forthwith suspend/delete the links/pages provided in their
platforms, as the 2nd petitioner is said to be misusing the trade
mark of the 1st respondent. Based upon the plaint averments, the
concerned Court passes an order on an application under Order
15
XXXIX Rule 1 CPC granting temporary injunction. The order reads
as follows:
"ORDERS ON I.A.II
The plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendants
seeking the relief of Permanent Injunction restraining the
defendants from providing Platform to the two dubious
Companies M/s.Eaglesight Telemedia Private Limited and
M/s.Btv Kannada Private Limited in posting or circulating
programmes by misusing the Logos and Trademarks which
belong to the plaintiff company.
As could be seen from the plaint averments it
appears that, the plaintiff is the Chairman and Director of
M/s.Eaglesight Media Private Limited, who is actual
owner of Btv Kannada News channel and also owns trade
mark Certificate its Logos. Such being the case one of its
Director by name Mr.Gangadharappa Munindra Kumar @
G.M.Kumar proclaimed himself as ace journalist, who
started misappropriating funds of plaintiff company and
also using Logos of the company and Btv and he time and
again attempting to loop the plaintiff company into one or
other cases by targetting two dubious Companies which
are doing defamatory programmes by misusing Logos of
Btv Kannada News Channel and he has filed civil suit in
O.S.No.7854/2022, which is pending before this court for
consideration. Since the defendant No.1 to 8 Plat forms
have circulating various defamatory news and articles
against the persons. Therefore, the plaintiff issued Notice
to the defendants for not provide platform to the said
dubious companies in posting and circulating any
programs by misusing Logos and Trademarks of the
plaintiff company.
Inspite of which the defendant one or other day are
circulating the programmes. Therefore, the plaintiff has filed the
present suit to restrain the defendant No.1 doing such acts.
Along with suit, the plaintiff has filed I.A.No.2 application
U/o.39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC to restrain the defendants from
16
providing plat form to two dubious companies and in circulating
programs by misusing Logos and trade mark which are belong
to the plaintiff.
Along with the suit the plaintiff has produced as many as
9 documents, such as certified copies of trade mark certificate,
Legal notices, reply notice, Defendants URL address Etc.
I have carefully gone through the plaint averments
and also the contents of prayer No.2 of the application. At
this stage the plaintiff has made-out prima-facie case for
trial. If exparte injunction order is not granted the very
purpose of the suit will be frustrated and it will lead to
multiplicity of proceedings. At this stage the
apprehension of the plaintiff cannot be ruled-out by
considering all these aspects of the case on hand I feel it
is just and necessary to dispense with the Notice of
I.A.No.2 and to inject the defendants No.1 to 8 from
providing plat form to the companies by name
M/s.Eaglesight Media Private Limited from posting or
circulating any programs by misusing Logos and
Trademark of the plaintiff. With these reasons I proceed
to pass the following:
ORDER
Issue ad-interim ex-parte Temporary Injunction
against the defendants as sought in I.A.No.2 till next date
of hearing.
Plaintiff shall have to comply the provisions of 39
Rule 3(a) of CPC.
After compliance and after paying sufficient P.F
office is directed to issue certified copy of this order.
Issue suit summons along with Notice of I.A.No.2 to
the defendants returnable by: 19.04.2025."
(Emphasis added)
Surprisingly, the order is corrected four days later on 07-04-2025.
While several allegations are made with regard to the correction,
but they appear to be typographical errors being corrected.
Nonetheless, there is an ad interim ex parte temporary injunction
on an application filed by the plaintiff. The order straight away
affects the right of the petitioners. When the entire pleadings and
the prayer are pointed against the petitioners, the concerned Court
ought not to have granted an accused-interim temporary injunction
restraining the defendants from acting in a particular manner,
which would straight away affect the rights of the petitioners. It is
trite that what had to be done directly, cannot be done indirectly.
An indirect method of keeping the petitioners away by not arraying
them as parties and filing the O.S.No.2499 of 2025 was itself a
dubious step, on the part of the 1st respondent/plaintiff.
9. The submission of the learned senior counsel for the 1st
respondent/plaintiff is that there was an injunction order. This order
is in continuation of the said injunction order and it is not against
the petitioners. The said submission is noted only to be rejected.
The direct effect of the prayer that is sought was that the
petitioners could not use their Btv logo in all social media
platforms; it does not affect the social media platform but it affects
the 2nd petitioner. The social media platforms which are made as
defendants are only intermediary. The right of the 2nd petitioner is
what is taken away without hearing and without making 2nd
petitioner a party. While it is the power of the Court to grant
temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC,
that cannot be granted against a person who is not even a party.
10. Temporary injunctions can be granted only against those
who are made defendants in the suit. Restraint orders against third
parties who are not made parties to the suit cannot be granted by
any cannon of law. While litigants may make or may not make
certain parties as defendants, though seeking a prayer against
those persons, but, the concerned Court cannot blissfully ignore the
law and pass the orders of the kind that is now passed. The
plaintiff shall now implead the petitioners as defendants in the
subject suit, failing which, no order can be passed against the
petitioners at any point during the subsistence of the suit. The writ
petition thus, deserves to succeed.
11. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) Writ Petition is allowed with cost of ₹50,000/- payable
by the 1st respondent to the petitioners.
(ii) The order dated 04-04-2025 passed by the LIX
Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru on
I.A.II in O.S.No.2499 of 2025 and the corrected order
passed thereto on 07-04-2025 are set aside qua the
petitioners.
(iii) All other contentions shall remain open. The plaintiff
shall now implead the petitioners as defendants before
the concerned Court.
Consequently, I.A.No.1 of 2025 also stands disposed.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
bkp
CT:MJ
