Karnataka High Court
M/S Salar Jung Sugar Mills Ltd vs Sunil R Morakka on 6 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:44891
CA No. 209 of 2024
In CA No.644 of 2001
In COP No. 82 of 1989
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M
COMPANY APPLICATION NO. 209 OF 2024
IN
COMPANY APPLICATION NO. 644 OF 2001
IN
COMPANY PETITION NO. 82 OF 1989
BETWEEN:
M/S. SALAR JUNG SUGAR MILLS LTD.,
(IN LIQUIDATION),
REPRESENTED BY OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR
ATTACHED TO HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
4TH FLOOR, D AND F WING,
KENDRIYA SADAN KORAMANGALA,
BENGALURU - 560001.
...APPLICANT
Digitally signed (BY SRI. PRAMOD R., ADVOCATE [ABSENT])
by THEJAS
KUMAR N
AND:
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 1. SUNIL R.MORAKKA,
S/O. NOT KNOWN
MAJOR,
R/O. 24/B, CAMI, CHEAL ROAD,
MUMBAI - 26.
2. SUSHIL R.MORAKKAR,
S/O. NOT KNOWN
MAJOR,
R/O 24/B, CAMI, CHEAL ROAD,
MUMBAI - 26
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:44891
CA No. 209 of 2024
In CA No.644 of 2001
In COP No. 82 of 1989
HC-KAR
3. MUGUSTAB N.NAGHNOOR,
S/O. NOT KNOWN,
MAJOR,
R/O. NO. 40, II FLOOR,
SANKY ROAD CROSS,
BENGALURU - 52.
4. TIRUMALA DEVAGIRI,
S/O. NOT KNOWN,
MAJOR,
R/O. ANEGUNDI, GANGAVATHI,
RAICHUR DISTRICT.
5. P.J.MONOHAR RAO,
S/O. NOT KNOWN
MAJOR,
R/O. A-10-1, YAMUNA APTHA
KUNDANA, NEW DELHI.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS COMPANY APPLICATION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 1
RULE 10(2) OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.
THIS COMPANY APPLICATION IS LISTED FOR ORDERS,
THIS DAY AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
When the matter is called, there is no representation on behalf of the applicant in C.A.No.209/2024, either personally or through video conferencing.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:44891 CA No. 209 of 2024 In CA No.644 of 2001 In COP No. 82 of 1989 HC-KAR As could be seen from the daily order sheet, the matter was listed on 16.10.2025, on that day, two weeks time was granted to comply office objections raised in C.A.No.209/2024.
The matter is listed today. Despite granting sufficient time, office objections are not complied with. As already noted above, when the case is called, there is no representation on behalf of the applicant, either personally or through video conferencing. It appears that the applicant is not interested in prosecuting the application. Hence, C.A.No.209/2024 is dismissed for non-prosecution and also for non-compliance of office objections.
SD/-
(JYOTI M) JUDGE MRP, KMV List No.: 1 Sl No.:1