High Court Karnataka High Court

Six Continents Hotels Inc vs Cehd Corporation on 24 October, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Six Continents Hotels Inc vs Cehd Corporation on 24 October, 2008
Author: A.S.Bopanna
IN THE HIGH COURT 0;? KARNATAKA AT BAm;;m;;Ls%% %%A%§% " 
DATED THIS THE 24th DAY {)9 OCFOEERV  ?fJ.jj TV %%
BEFORE  W"   : A 
THE HOWBLE MR. JUS'}_'fCE  B«C;».'PAT\I'.!§3}';    ' V' .

WRET PETITIGN No.4154,{éa~08 (G  '

BETWEEN :

1 SIX CfONTiN;t}N'I?S'H(}TELS;-INC _,-- jj; . V
A CiORPO::i~3A'i'}jQf§" ifw1_C(3Rf?€)R£'«.T£2D U:-saga THE
LAWS OF' QELWARE £}é3A"I'h'REE Rpgwwia DRIVE
SUITE~ 2909' $¥.TLAi'%?'?A 'GA'--30346'+r23-:49
THE:VUf€ITE£'}j3'i'g?.T'3EVS QF'*é;MER'!CA
REP BY {firs AU'}'!€i€3.RISE'L'{ SIGNATORY
MR' 3 caamnrzgvsaiggaa;-mg" 

2 SC HOTELS :3; :??Esz3§:1?ORMERLTY..}iOLIII)AY INN CROWNE
 A P£;.AZ£\ éffltfifig) PVT LTD A CQINCORPORATED
» fm_,AC:c0R1:3Ain'CE WITH THE PROWSIONS 0;?
A  "i;*:-12::Av::'r::--»,A::'*:*VJ~1Vs§;::'>6 85 HAVING ITS
~_ R3{3IS"£'ER~ED;;{}FFICE AT 807~8€)9
E'.-iEi§CA?§'F£i--._:Ef£OUSE 15 KG
£s+fi"sRGv«._NEW 931.531 119 001
V, REF ~§3Y*£'I'S AUTHORISED SIGNATQRY
 _ M}? S GHANDRASEKARAN
  PE'I'¥TI<}NERS

.   3:1; SHREYAS JAYASIM HA, A8\r'.,]

$

'4-



ANIJ :

1 CEHD coaptmmon
825 ms. MAIN 131' STAGE
1'ND!§?ANAGAR
BANGALORE~»560038  _   '
ALSC} AT # 545 HENNUR CRGf}84   _  -  '
ALSO AT NQV-EST *2?L.'4".SE~»     .
z3ANGALcaRE~s:§ob7«2. , _ '-

3 CROWN mafia xéfmwz, &.»._R'ESORTS PVT LTD
C/C: CEHQ c:<;:RP'€xIe.aTiQN»»«. 
825,10A'=MAiN rr:22s'1',s':*A<:;s:
:Nr;:RANA:-QAR _   
BA;PéRf}fi: L0RE+-5507033

  'V  .....   RESPONDENTS

(é;:t1s’f»;;:r§:’::v§:j: THROUGH PAPER’ PLIBLICATKQN}

‘F HES FILED UNDER AR”I’ECL»E 227 OF’ THE

_ ~–.__CQNSTI'{‘UTIOEf¥ OF INDIA PRAYENG TO SET~ASE{3E THE
ii’-REEF? ET. i4.£,2-908 AND THE ORDER DT.
C 1i?..&2.20CI8…’PASSED BY’ THE LEARNED XHI ADDITIONAL CETY
€Z’EVE¥,.;!I_.I§’j}C%E AT BANGALORE, MAYO ¥~I:’~\LL UNIT, BANG1’xL(}RE

CCJUBXF HALL NCLQQ, IN 0.8.1510. 16134/Z4303 PRODUCED AS

. ‘£§NNEXURES A AND B HERETO, WHEREUNQER THE LEARNED

‘Ei’Ii’lL5;{; COIJRF JUDGE HAS ALLGWED THE FOLLOWING TE-{REE

” ., ¢§PL1cAT£<3Ns OF THE RESPONDENTS.

)2

'$-

reject. thf: said application. Whiie stating so, I

conscious {if the fact that if ultimatfily tha dcfendanifi = ‘

provicied the opportunity, it would ’61?

pmceedings anti as such ifthc: order

it is {noticed that the czrder passed 1 1&3
an opportunity tn the defendants and
also to {finder their cviden{_§f:;M«’ T hi itself afimady

ten mcmths have ‘fihagfifiizg, 1:31:13 aspect

into consifiéiéificniivigfneiiiEgiofifiiaig Viiflzvr-V: suit is now listed iizr
further in the fact of this natxam,

I am {if the vit= v§’that advgrting to the: de:ta1’ls- of the

‘crder coiimnfiisns and to deny the opportmlity to

Vflge’ {}V£=:§’;”e2.rM1Aci:azfi’i::=§;”~. awouid be appmpfiattt to regulate the

p19c>zEéi2igsv fmm tbs stage tha ognpoztunity has

‘ham: tnéfi the ciafzmdazzt more particulariy keeping in

= v§§§wAAti:c..A9b$e1vatiox1s made by the Horfble Supreme Court

i’}i.~aiA;fI1»<;e'$11it is ta be disposed afwifhin a time flame and by

jzxtzccss, fhift object of proxéiztling oppermzzity to fhf:

gefsndaxlts as WEB as having the mxit disposed of on its

4%

n

Ii

Rs.1,,{){)G[~ has been imposed . Ifiler a moment3..g§fe1;VfA§T::th'at%1 "

is assumed, the casts imposed is tafi :_

fact that even in a cage Wham there: WES dheciiazi tfge

Ho;z1'b1: Supaemc Court to ofiizéiudc $3516: 1 Wthe
defendants have i1}{i111gedf 5.1:; a the
without being diligent and to this
stage. Taldllg ._.a.id, tI;r:3gl:’::ei1c3fit. of {$112 V<V;_2;3;i¢r;1' 0f the 111221 Cmlrt as well as this

€?_x3u,1ft xgfit. to the defezatiant.-3,

'Ir{¢ z1ceV, the above: csbservatioxzs, ciizccsizions and

.<;'1a1ificatic:1V$A;i- the pefitinn stands dispersed cf} No oxfim' as 1:0

': H this petitioza.

Sd/-u
Judge

Aka