[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
M/S Katalyst Productions Pvt Ltd vs Mrs. Ambika G Nayak on 6 April, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:18454
WP No. 21606 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
WRIT PETITION No. 21606 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. M/S KATALYST PRODUCTIONS PVT. LTD.,
A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY,
(INCORPORATED UNDER
COMPANIES ACT, 1952)
KNOWN BY ITS BRAND NAME AS
NAMMA T.V.,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR,
DR. SHIVASHARAN SHETTY,
S/O LATE K. JAYARAM SHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
SHRI GANESH BUILDING,
KULAI, MANGALORE 575019.
Digitally signed ...PETITIONER
by VINUTHA B
S
(BY SRI. CHIDANANDA KEDILAYA M., ADVOCATE)
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka AND:
1. MRS. AMBIKA G NAYAK,
D/O NOT KNOWN
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
RESIDING AT 4-173A,
EKAA, LAXMINDRANAGAR,
7TH CROSS, KUNJIBETTU POST,
UDUPI 576 102.
...RESPONDENT
(NOTICE TO RESPONDENT-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:18454
WP No. 21606 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
DATED 28.02.2025 PASSED ON I.A. No.VIII IN O.S. No.
148/2018 BY THE I ADDI. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM,
MANGALURU PRODUCED ANNEXURE-A.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
ORAL ORDER
Heard Sri.Chidananda Kedilaya M., learned counsel for
the petitioner.
2. The present writ petition is filed by the plaintiff in O.S.
No.148/2018, impugning the order dated 28.02.2025 passed
on I.A. No. VIII, filed under Section 10 read with Section 151 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), on the file of the I
Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mangaluru (hereinafter
referred to as the 'trial Court').
3. Sri Chidananda Kedilaya M., learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is a private
limited company represented by its Managing Director. The
petitioner, as plaintiff, has instituted O.S. No.148/2018 seeking
compensation of Rs.3,00,00,000/- from the defendant. It is
NC: 2026:KHC:18454
HC-KAR
further submitted that the Managing Director of the petitioner,
in his individual capacity, has also instituted O.S. No.147/2018
seeking identical relief of compensation of Rs.3,00,00,000/-
from the defendant.
3.1 Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that
the cause of action in both the suits is the same. However, it is
contended that the petitioner-Company in O.S. No.148/2018
and Dr. Shiva Sharan Shetty, the plaintiff in O.S. No.147/2018,
are acting in different and independent capacities. It is
submitted that merely because the company is represented by
Dr. Shiva Sharan Shetty in his capacity as Managing Director,
the same would not disentitle him from seeking compensation
in his individual capacity by instituting a separate suit. It is
further submitted that the trial Court, without considering the
distinct legal identity of the plaintiffs in both suits, and merely
on the basis of the similarity in the cause of action and the
reliefs claimed, has erroneously stayed further proceedings in
O.S. No.148/2018 pending disposal of O.S. No.147/2018.
3.2 Learned counsel further submits that even if O.S.
No.147/2018 is decided, O.S. No.148/2018 cannot be disposed
NC: 2026:KHC:18454
HC-KAR
of solely on the basis of such decision, without an independent
enquiry.
4. The respondent is served, and there is no representation.
5. Considered the submissions made by learned counsel for
the petitioner.
6. O.S. No.148/2018 is instituted by a private limited
company represented by its Managing Director, Dr. Shiva
Sharan Shetty. The defamatory statement, which constitutes
the cause of action for the suit, is also alleged to have been
made against Dr. Shiva Sharan Shetty in his individual
capacity, as is evident from the pleadings. The said suit is filed
by the company, which, as a juristic entity, has the legal
capacity to claim damages. Merely because the plaintiff in O.S.
No.147/2018 has represented the company in O.S.
No.148/2018, his independent right to claim damages or
compensation cannot be curtailed. The rights of the plaintiffs in
both the suits are independent.
7. Though the cause of action and the reliefs claimed in both
suits are identical, the plaintiffs in the two suits assert distinct
NC: 2026:KHC:18454
HC-KAR
and independent grievances, and adjudication in one suit would
not conclude the other without an independent enquiry. The
trial Court appears to have erred in passing the impugned order
solely on the basis of the description of the parties, the cause
of action, and the reliefs claimed in both suits.
8. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order is
unsustainable. Accordingly, the following order is passed:
ORDER
(i) Writ petition is allowed-in-part.
(ii) The order on IA No.VIII dated 28.02.2025 in
O.S.No.148/2018 is hereby set aside.
(iii) The trial Court is directed to proceed further in the
suit.
(iv) No orders as to costs.
Sd/-
(K. V. ARAVIND)
JUDGE
VBS
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25
