Karnataka High Court
Karnataka State Electronics ... vs Baron Electronics Pvt Ltd on 20 January, 2025
Author: Jyoti Mulimani
Bench: Jyoti Mulimani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:2504
RFA No. 768 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 768 OF 2018 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
KARNATAKA STATE ELECTRONICS DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LIMTIED (KEONICS),
2ND FLOOR, BMTC COMPLEX,
SHANTI NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 002.
REPRESENTED THROUGH AUTHORIZED OFFICER,
SRI SHIVAKUMAR S/O KOTRAPPA KARDKAL,
AGE 59 YEARS, OCC:MANAGER,
KARNATAKA STATE ELECTRONICS
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED,
2ND FLOOR, BMTC COMPLEX,
SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. DEEPAK.S.SHETTY., ADVOCATE [ABSENT])
AND:
1. BARON ELECTRONICS PVT LTD.,
NO.6, 1ST FLOOR, M.S.LANE,
Digitally signed by S.P.ROAD CROSS, BENGALURU-560 002.
THEJASKUMAR N
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
Location: High
Court of Karnataka MR SHAWARLAL.
2. M/S ARPANA INVESTMENT,
6TH MILE, HOSUR ROAD,
PUPANE AGRAHARA, MADIWALA POST,
BENGALURU-560 068.
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
96 OF THE CPC, 1908.
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS LISTED FOR ORDERS,
THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:2504
RFA No. 768 of 2018
ORAL ORDER
When the case is called, the appellant is not represented. When the case is listed and is called out, the advocate must be present. His absence may affect the case.
As could be seen from the daily order sheet, the appeal was listed on several dates and sufficient time was granted to comply with the office objections. Again the appeal was listed on 06.01.2025, on that day, finally a week's time was granted to comply with the office objections, subject to payment of cost of Rs.500/- payable to the Advocates' Clerks Association Benevolent Trust, High court of Karnataka, Bengaluru and it was ordered to listed on 20.01.2025.
The appeal is listed today. Despite granting sufficient time, the appellant has not complied with the office objections and the cost also not paid. It appears that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. The appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution and also for non-compliance of office objections.
Sd/-
(JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43