Karnataka High Court
WP/26542/2025 of SRI SUBRAMANYA H Vs M/S MAX CONCORDE DEVELOPERS on 29 August 2026
CNR: KAHC010575232025 NC: 2026:KHC:47207 WP No. 26542 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 26542 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. SUBRAMANYA H, S/O. LATE LAKSHMINARAYANA
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
WRIT PETITION NO. 26542 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI. SUBRAMANYA H,
S/O. LATE LAKSHMINARAYANA H,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/AT NO.1A, CHOWDESHWARA PRASANNA,
17TH MAIN, 9TH CROSS,
MUNESHWARA BLOCK,
BENGALURU – 560 026.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. H.JAYANTHA POOJARY., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
M/S. MAX CONCORDE DEVELOPERS,
NO.2231, III FLOOR, 11TH MAIN,
III BLOCK EAST, JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 011.
REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS.
2.
SRI. JAYARAM,
PARTNER OF M/S. MAX CONCORDE DEVELOPERS, NO.2231, III FLOOR, 11TH MAIN, III BLOCK EAST, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 011.
Digitally
signed by
SUVARNA T
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
3.
SRI.VENKATESH,
PARTNER OF M/S.MAX CONCORDE DEVELOPERS,
NO.2231, III FLOOR,
11TH MAIN, III BLOCK EAST,
JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 011.
…RESPONDENTS
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING AND OR
BY SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER AT ANNX-A PASSED
BY THE XVIII ADDL.SMALL CAUSE COURT (SCCH-04) AT
BANGALORE IN SC.NO.509/2019 ON I.A. FILED UNDER
SECTION 45 OF EVIDENCE ACT AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
A memo is filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that subsequent to filing of this petition, the Trial Court has passed the judgment. Hence, the writ petition has become infructuous.
2. Memo is taken on record.
HC-KAR
3. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed having become infructuous.
4. Pending IAs., if any, shall stand closed.
SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE
BH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19