Karnataka High Court
Smt S Kunjithamala vs Hvac Systems Pvt Ltd on 6 September, 2013
Bench: Dilip B.Bhosale, B.Manohar
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 06th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DILIP B.BHOSALE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.MANOHAR
COMPANY APPEAL NO.14/2012
BETWEEN:
1. Smt.S.Kunjithamala
W/o late Sri.Ramamoorthi,
Aged 45 years,
2. R.A.Preethi d/o late Sri.Ramamoorthi,
Aged 21 years,
3. Mr.R.Prashanth
s/o late Sri.Ramamoorthi,
Aged 18 years,
All are r/o c/o HVAC Systems Pvt.Ltd.,
No.145, 2nd main, 1st 'B' cross,
2nd phase, Domlur, Bangalore-560071.
...APPELLANTS
(By Sri.H.R.Narayana Rao, Adv.)
AND:
1. HVAC Systems Pvt. Ltd.,
Registered office at Bangalore,
Karnataka, with Regn.No.16023/94
Represented by its Managing Director,
No.145, 2nd main, 1st 'B' cross,
2nd phase, Domlur,
Bangalore-560071.
-2-
2. L.Vivekananda,
s/o Ramakrishnappa
Age major,
R/at No.731, 1st cross,
3rd main, Defence colony,
Indiranagar, Bangalore-560 038.
3. ING Vysya Bank,
Corporate office,
M.G.Road, Bangalore-560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(By Sri.R.Nataraj, Adv. for C/R2) This COMP.A. is filed under Section 10(F) of the Companies Act, 1956, praying to set aside the order dated 01.06.2012 passed by the Hon'ble Company Law Board, Additional Principal Bench, Chennai, and pass such other orders including the award of costs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit, in the interest of justice and equity; and etc., This COMP.A. coming on for admission this day, DILIP B.BHOSALE J, delivered the following:-
PC:
On 05.07.2013, the following order was passed:-
"Mr.Narayana Rao, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, submits that it -3- is not convenient for the senior counsel to appear today and requests for a week's time.
List next week for admission as
requested".
Thereafter, the appeal was placed before this Court on 23.08.2013 and 29.08.2013 and on both the occasions, at the request of the very same advocate on record Mr.Narayan Rao, it was adjourned on the ground that his senior, who is also an advocate on record, is not available. Today, once again, he seeks adjournment on the same ground.
2. Mr.Narayan Rao, advocate, has filed vakalat on behalf of the appellants. In view thereof, we rejected the application (oral) for adjournment and directed him to go on with the matter. He, however, expressed his inability to go on with the matter.
3. In the circumstances, we are constrained to dismiss this appeal for non-prosecution. Order accordingly.
It is made clear that, if application for recalling of this order is filed, the advocate on record shall deposit -4- Rs.1,500/- by way of costs before moving the Court for restoration of appeal.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE Srl.