{"id":96973,"date":"2009-05-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-05-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kiran-kumar-vs-shri-lakshmi-venkataramana-on-28-may-2009"},"modified":"2015-03-12T23:45:50","modified_gmt":"2015-03-12T18:15:50","slug":"kiran-kumar-vs-shri-lakshmi-venkataramana-on-28-may-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kiran-kumar-vs-shri-lakshmi-venkataramana-on-28-may-2009","title":{"rendered":"Kiran Kumar vs Shri Lakshmi Venkataramana on 28 May, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Kiran Kumar vs Shri Lakshmi Venkataramana on 28 May, 2009<\/div>\n
Author: A.S.Bopanna<\/div>\n
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANQ;3L:c\u00a7\"F \u00a7:VV;.A\u00ab 3\n\nDATED THIS THE 28th my 0?' MAY  .  ' \n\nBEFORE   \"\n\nTHE HON'BLE MR. .;Us*r1c.'E:.VA*$1?\u00a70I$ArJANAV \u00ab. \"  A T\n\nMISCELLANEOUS F1RSr'AI}ff?EAL \u00a7\u00a2'0.__ 82305\/2568' \nBETWEEN :  ' E\n\nKIRAN KUMAR S\/O. P.RA.;m - *\n\nAGED ABOU'I'56YEARS 1  2   \n'KIRAN PRoDucTsf,_RAGHA.wv--ENDRA.;<R1PAv_ A " \nPADUBIDRI, PU\u00a3}EBuET'1'UiVILLA'GE,.\u00a2V   \nPOS'I':PADU}3If)\u00a7RI    _  ' '\nUDUPITALUK&'D:sTRicr'.\u00ab.,_,__     APPELLANT\n\n{BY Sm ?1\u00a7.s.._ Dr\ufb01E--s}1;..K'gx%\ufb01\u00a7;' A_1:;xz.-'}\n\nAND :\n\n _ 1. ..  Lax\u00e9z\u00e9ml, VVENKATARAMANA\n\nV ._ '-  VII;-}';AG'E. INDUSTRIES,\n' e , VASUNDHAARA NAGARA,\n T ":4Av1N:.Asss:>__<;:-N" 'i~.A.---NO,:1__' _\nEN O.S.NO. 1\/2007 on THE FILE OF THE DIST. JU~Z3GE,-I_}E3UE'\u00a3.  1 \nDISMISSING THE EA FILED UNDER ORDER. 39 \u00a7_~?.I_..I{,_I_':2'~.1 TO 3 ow "  "\n\nCFC FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION.   \n\nThis Appeal coming on for \n\nCourt delivered the following :  _'\n\n  e H\nThe appellant hezein:}s;Ati1e No.1\/2007.\nThe suit in question is  ihy --.15_h\u00a2 seeking for a\n\njudgment  'Qf to resume' the\n\n ' \u00e9iiitder them from passing\noff the    * rket under the names 'Sri\n\nRaghayend1~a"M\u00a7iit?Vanci'=_'$iiV Raghavencira Badami Feast' or\n\n "  \ufb01raaxfk deee"tive1y similar to the marks being used\n\n  The further relief of mandatory injunction\n\nfoe  of the deceptively similar marks, cartons,\n\n'paekaxgesv"'by {he defendants to the plainti\ufb01" is also sought for\n\n    In the pending suit, the plain\ufb01\ufb01 has also \ufb01led an\n\n __  application under Order 39 Ruies 1 and 2 of\n\n" seelcing for an order of temporary injunction restram' 111' g\n\nJ;\n\nI\nan\n\n\n\nd  \n\nthe defendants in the similar manner as soughtAV.\u00a39it\n\nplaint and in aid of the main prayer. The said"  M\n\nregistered is registered ae iA~i.\n\n2. The case of the V_bete'1'eV:_'\ufb02z.eVV  \nthat they have been mariee\ufb01ng _V  name\nand style as 'Sri   Raghavendra\nBadami Feast'   vdsiitbdsiequently their\n\ntrade mark   year 2004. Their\n\ngievanee  1   are using the s1'm1lar'\ncartons  the name of the malt powder\n\nbeing.   teee-em the defendants are to be\n\n  'defendants on being noti\ufb01ed" have appeaxed\n\n'hand  the claim of the plainti\ufb01' and they have aiso\n\n "..f\ufb01ied~.__their objection statement to the interlocutoiy\n\n ety\ufb01hea\ufb01on. The defendants have contended that the\n\n" "defendants themseives have been manufacturing and\n\nmarketing the malt powder from around the same time as\n\nis\n\n\n\nclaimed by the plainti\ufb01 and runner the defend\u00a7\ufb01i$ '- ..\n\ncontend that they have \ufb01led an appiica\ufb01riii  H\n\nregistration of their trade mark and' "the % ap:\u00a71icg';\u00a5.\u00a7ic;:r;% is  V'\n\npending with the authoztities and%"".1;h\u00a7\u00a7:\u00a2'1b;~\u00a2T"--:j\u00a7c. \n\ncannot claim' any better right  '    \n\n4. The trial   '\u00e9\u00e9\u00e9g\ufb01idc\ufb01ng the rival\ncontentions with  '--1\u00a2hef in IA-i, has\n\nultimately  {\ufb01e ;2};1)1i:;'r:;.V';af\u00a3f.'<V)'-'3'\ufb01VV fay' its order dated\n\n20.6.20<\/pre>\n
i58. H  to be aggxticvcd
\nby the se’1AidV order,  Comt.\n<\/p>\n
5,  P@\u00a73;Din\u00e9shV””i{u1:\ufb01.ar, learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
 V’  on” 1j\u00a2fe1i;ii1Tg”toV the facts arising in the present case<\/p>\n
  T. the trial Court has referred to the<\/p>\n
dacxg\ufb01aentaij\ufb01\u00e9-‘I-3:-\u00e9ideaxce which had been placed before the U13’ 1<\/p>\n
   has come to a de\ufb01nite conclusion that the<\/p>\n
A “ii have been marke\ufb01ng thc: malt powder in the I}3II1(3:S<\/p>\n
  of”; ‘Sri Raghavendra Malt’ and ‘Sri Raghavendra Badami<\/p>\n
u feast’ \ufb01nm the year 198? and on noticing the conten\ufb01ons<\/p>\n
J<\/p>\n
put forth by the defendant has ultinaaiely held <\/p>\n
plain\ufb01jf has made out a prima facie case. _’_\u00a3’ix;eu  .<\/p>\n
counsel would further: contend that when the  ll ” 2<\/p>\n
come to the conclusion that the primajfacie ‘ease  :’f:–ee’31_’<\/p>\n
made out and that the trade the   5 <\/p>\n
registered trade mark, there Was%io,Vo\u00a31;_er of)’iienv.:forvVfthe trial
\nCourt, but to injunct  trade
\nmark of the  In a..catee.   question of
\nconsidering  of  in any manner\n<\/p>\n
 -to carry on the business even
\nduring   Jssuit is not sustainabie and<\/p>\n
therefore the o1″der”eal1e’ fol: interference. In oider to jus\ufb01fy<\/p>\n
 \ufb01V\ufb011t’: Sa. id ieonltegttion,  learned counsel would refer to the<\/p>\n
Adoeumentaxfy eitidenoe in detail.<\/p>\n
    Sudhakar Pal, learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
VA llfteegiendent however sought to justify the order passed by the<\/p>\n
   The learned counsel would contend that in a<\/p>\n
ll  relating to trade mark, it is incumbent on the tnal’<\/p>\n
Court to apply the same pzinciples that are applicable to the<\/p>\n
J<\/p>\n
‘I<\/p>\n
grant or rejection of an ozder of temporary injunct_ion’   V.<\/p>\n
such all the three tests of prima facie    <\/p>\n
convenience and htmparahie  . fog: corzeiiiexa\ufb01en. <\/p>\n
The Iearned counsel would point out thehinhstazxt  <\/p>\n
even though the trial Court hescozee  ‘\u00a3.he’cox\u00a7c1tu\u00a7ion that ‘V<\/p>\n
the plain\ufb01\ufb01 has made out a  the espect of
\nbalance of convenience  _bce’nV;:oi11;tirehens.iveEy dealt with
\nby the t\ufb01a}  1e:fe15’enee  binuhng decisions and
\nwhen the   has   a _decision based on the
\nearlier iiecieioiis?-“.01:  the same does not call for<\/p>\n
interferenhce-._.L” . . ,.\n<\/p>\n
_7 In  jightof thefivai contentions, a perusal of the<\/p>\n
 ‘~   insofar as the issue Ielatjng to the<\/p>\n
 V ‘g cm:  ..p::’imn a faeie case, since it has been held in<\/p>\n
fatlonf of  and since the same has not been ca\ufb02ed<\/p>\n
 question by the defendants, it is uxmecessary to advert to<\/p>\n
A .,?_\ufb01:ath”aS;)ect of the matter and it would be necessary to<\/p>\n
 exeunine the eorrectnessiof the ultimate ortier passed on<\/p>\n
f
\nn<\/p>\n
such \ufb01nding relating to the prima facie case. Firstly, thefact<\/p>\n
that even in a case relating to trade mark, the  <\/p>\n
would be bound to appiy the tripod test beifdre  K <\/p>\n
Injection of temporary injunction canndt’ be   <\/p>\n
this aspect of the matter is Ahweili  ” by n <\/p>\n
pronouncements of the Hon*nle
\nin this background, it xveu1d\u00ab..b\ufb02e  as to
\nwhether the trial      eoming to the
\nconclusion on  _eennen.tence.\n<\/p>\n
8.”  :_4ti1e””oV}.:der of the trial Court would<\/p>\n
indiczegiev thattthe    has referred to this aspect from<\/p>\n
  _    considering this aspect of the<\/p>\n
   has made reference to the judgments<\/p>\n
of  ‘income to the conciusinn that even in the ease<\/p>\n
 ‘bade  being registered, the question relating to the .<\/p>\n
   of convenience would have to be eonsidered and the<\/p>\n
K  mere estabiishing of pxima facie case would not be sufficient<\/p>\n
‘4 tn injunet the defendants. Having neticed the legal position,<\/p>\n
J<\/p>\n
r’.\n<\/p>\n
the trial Court has referred to the fact that even <\/p>\n
p1a:inti\ufb01’ has got the trade mark registered in the\u00e9yeet *<\/p>\n
the defendants have placed materials h\u00e9efoted  K x<\/p>\n
indicate that they have also filed thei1::’_”a\ufb01p1tc:e\ufb01oti <\/p>\n
registration of their trade mark’  200’c3?;\n<\/p>\n
9. The important aspeet consideration in the<\/p>\n
present case is the earliei_”x::atu._t*e of the .bnsiness ooinmenced<\/p>\n
and the conduct of the pa.I1:ie\u20ac;_.V  baa’ 1 Court<\/p>\n
has maigle   notice that even though the
\nplaintiff   of puma” facie case that they<\/p>\n
had eo~m;nencedVV’tiE1e’V’b1::siness in the year 1987 the<\/p>\n
   the defendant aiso would indicate<\/p>\n
Atheg eotemeneezeent of the business is almost<\/p>\n
cont;:n1po:”eneot1s and in this backgound, the conduct and<\/p>\n
 m\u00e9gzzzfxer in which the injunction has been sought is<\/p>\n
   Therefore, the trial Court has referred to the<\/p>\n
K L’ heoizxtention of the plain\ufb01\ufb01 that after the registration of the<\/p>\n
 trade mark in the year 2604, a notice was issued to the<\/p>\n
J<\/p>\n
ft<\/p>\n
defendants on 11.2.2004. But, ultimately the suit been<\/p>\n
\ufb01led on 24.10.2007. In a fact of this nature, I am  _<\/p>\n
that even though the Rearmed coungsel for  dd ” = <\/p>\n
herein has strenuously contended that.-L1. fia\u00e9dmstter  Ad<\/p>\n
to trade mark, the injunction’ is to he ‘   is  ;<\/p>\n
established that the trade markvuuis  other
\nperson is infringing the the decisions of
\nthis Coult noticed by H_t};:1’e._  ;% _h7ero;:~e refusing
\ninjunction, the:   not taking any
\naction  __2\u20ac){)”7V;.vou1d also be relevant for
\nthe purpo’st_:L4of  the interlocutory application<\/p>\n
inasmuch. as ‘V when a ‘V’dis(::etio::1a1y relief is granted, the<\/p>\n
   such discretionary relief more<\/p>\n
  ” hj’g’,i.\u00a5way of injunction should have to be<\/p>\n
estetblislited-‘_;’ in the instant case, when the p}a1’ntiff<\/p>\n
  “thAemse”h*.eAs have allowed the defendants to carry on the<\/p>\n
  i’hjt.1s\u00a7,nfess despite knowiedge of the defendants carrying on<\/p>\n
   business and further when theee aspects are to be<\/p>\n
 considered on its merits with regard to the nature of the<\/p>\n
.L<\/p>\n
‘5<\/p>\n
6<\/span><\/p>\n
business and more particularly considering the fact <\/p>\n
plajnti\ufb01s have also sought for rendition of   _<\/p>\n
Hence in the facts of the present case, i am of  t1A1at_: ff<\/p>\n
restraining the defendants at this stsge woeldfnofi.  f is <\/p>\n
10. It is no doubt    has
\nimported certain haxdshigj that may
\nbe faced by the defendants    industry etc.,
\nbut the sa1:ie””;;;ie’V not;  this f Court.
\n the trial Court, the trial
\nCourt was the injunction, since in any<\/p>\n
eventeeven inuthe  ease, if a time frame is \ufb01xed to the<\/p>\n
    the entire matter on its merits,<\/p>\n
 ed~u1\u00a3i happen is that the defendants would<\/p>\n
con1j1_1uetc  the business in the same name for a further<\/p>\n
  shoxt dmj\u00e9ition. This View is taken by me, more paxtict\ufb01arly<\/p>\n
   the fact that the plainti\ufb01” themseives had<\/p>\n
  such a course from the year 2004 despite their<\/p>\n
 stmztluous contention that their trade mark was registered in<\/p>\n
11<\/span><\/p>\n
the year 2004 and they had knowledge of the business of the<\/p>\n
defendants. V<\/p>\n
11. Therefoie, insofar as the order dated 20,6,2Qt)8,<\/p>\n
passed by the ma” 1 Court, I do not see reason to  .<\/p>\n
as such I am of the View that the present appeal of it ” =<\/p>\n
merit. However, the trial Court is   it<\/p>\n
dispose of the suit on its merits as ex1jeditious\u00a3y”\u00a7is <\/p>\n
but in any event, not later than  ‘montI:is’   date of<\/p>\n
production _of:’of -aide: before the triai Court. The<\/p>\n
learned    before the trial Court shall<\/p>\n
co–opex-::1$”.1?:. with the in early disposal of the suit.<\/p>\n
. ‘A .   the LCR to the trial Court forthwith.<\/p>\n
  V  above, the appeal stands disposed of.<\/p>\n
No oznderns eosts.\n<\/p>\n
Sd\/-3
\nIudge<\/p>\n
Aka] bins<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Kiran Kumar vs Shri Lakshmi Venkataramana on 28 May, 2009 Author: A.S.Bopanna IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANQ;3L:c\u00a7”F \u00a7:VV;.A\u00ab 3 DATED THIS THE 28th my 0?’ MAY . ‘ BEFORE ” THE HON’BLE MR. .;Us*r1c.’E:.VA*$1?\u00a70I$ArJANAV \u00ab. ” A T MISCELLANEOUS F1RSr’AI}ff?EAL \u00a7\u00a2’0.__ 82305\/2568’ BETWEEN : ‘ E KIRAN KUMAR S\/O. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-96973","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nKiran Kumar vs Shri Lakshmi Venkataramana on 28 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kiran-kumar-vs-shri-lakshmi-venkataramana-on-28-may-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kiran Kumar vs Shri Lakshmi Venkataramana on 28 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kiran-kumar-vs-shri-lakshmi-venkataramana-on-28-may-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-05-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-03-12T18:15:50+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kiran-kumar-vs-shri-lakshmi-venkataramana-on-28-may-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kiran-kumar-vs-shri-lakshmi-venkataramana-on-28-may-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Kiran Kumar vs Shri Lakshmi Venkataramana on 28 May, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-05-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-12T18:15:50+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kiran-kumar-vs-shri-lakshmi-venkataramana-on-28-may-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1214,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kiran-kumar-vs-shri-lakshmi-venkataramana-on-28-may-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kiran-kumar-vs-shri-lakshmi-venkataramana-on-28-may-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kiran-kumar-vs-shri-lakshmi-venkataramana-on-28-may-2009\",\"name\":\"Kiran Kumar vs Shri Lakshmi Venkataramana on 28 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-05-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-12T18:15:50+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kiran-kumar-vs-shri-lakshmi-venkataramana-on-28-may-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kiran-kumar-vs-shri-lakshmi-venkataramana-on-28-may-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kiran-kumar-vs-shri-lakshmi-venkataramana-on-28-may-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kiran Kumar vs Shri Lakshmi Venkataramana on 28 May, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Kiran Kumar vs Shri Lakshmi Venkataramana on 28 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kiran-kumar-vs-shri-lakshmi-venkataramana-on-28-may-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kiran Kumar vs Shri Lakshmi Venkataramana on 28 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kiran-kumar-vs-shri-lakshmi-venkataramana-on-28-may-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-05-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-03-12T18:15:50+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kiran-kumar-vs-shri-lakshmi-venkataramana-on-28-may-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kiran-kumar-vs-shri-lakshmi-venkataramana-on-28-may-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Kiran Kumar vs Shri Lakshmi Venkataramana on 28 May, 2009","datePublished":"2009-05-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-12T18:15:50+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kiran-kumar-vs-shri-lakshmi-venkataramana-on-28-may-2009"},"wordCount":1214,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kiran-kumar-vs-shri-lakshmi-venkataramana-on-28-may-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kiran-kumar-vs-shri-lakshmi-venkataramana-on-28-may-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kiran-kumar-vs-shri-lakshmi-venkataramana-on-28-may-2009","name":"Kiran Kumar vs Shri Lakshmi Venkataramana on 28 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-05-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-12T18:15:50+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kiran-kumar-vs-shri-lakshmi-venkataramana-on-28-may-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kiran-kumar-vs-shri-lakshmi-venkataramana-on-28-may-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kiran-kumar-vs-shri-lakshmi-venkataramana-on-28-may-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kiran Kumar vs Shri Lakshmi Venkataramana on 28 May, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/96973","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=96973"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/96973\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=96973"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=96973"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=96973"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}