Karnataka High Court
Karnataka State Electronics ... vs Baron Electronics Pvt Ltd on 20 December, 2021
Author: H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
Bench: H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL No.768 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
KARNATAKA STATE ELECTRONICS DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LIMITED (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)
AND:
1. BARON ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.,
NO.6, 1ST FLOOR, M.S.LANE,
S.P.ROAD CROSS, BENGALURU-560002,
REPRESENTED BY IT MANAGING DIRECTOR,
MR.SHAWARLAL.
2. M/S ARPANA INVESTMENT,
6TH MILE, HOSUR ROAD,
PUPANE AGRAHARA, MADIWALA POST,
BENGALURU - 560 068
RFA No. 768/2018
2
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR. ..RESPONDENTS
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC.,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 15.09.2017
PASSED IN OS NO.1501/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.
CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE,
DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION.
THIS R.F.A. COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THROUGH
PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Learned counsel for the appellant who is physically present in the Court prays for a week's accommodation to comply the office objections, stating that after he complying the office objections, some more office objections have subsequently been raised by the registry and as such, he required some more time to comply the office objections.
2. A perusal of the order sheet would go to show that in this appeal of the year 2018, several and sufficient opportunities of not less than seven times have already been granted to the appellant to comply the office RFA No. 768/2018 3 objections. Opportunities like finally and as a last chance, etc., were all given to him. Even though the learned counsel for the appellant submits that after he complying all the office objections, subsequently, the present outstanding office objections were raised, but a perusal of the order sheet negatives the same. Though, there are few office objections which were raised subsequently, however some of the earlier office objections are also yet to be complied with.
4. Even after raising of the subsequent office objections, this Court on several dates of hearing had granted time to comply the same, in which regard, the order sheet dated 16.01.2021, 29.01.2021 and 11.02.2021 can be looked into which are self explanatory. A detailed reasoned order was passed on all these days. As long back as on 16.01.2021, making it clear that no further adjournment would be granted, imposing a cost of `500/-, though the Court had granted the time, as prayed for by the appellant RFA No. 768/2018 4 even thereafter, on 29.01.2021, once again, heeding to the request of the learned counsel for the appellant, as a last chance, ten (10) days time as prayed for was granted to comply the office objections, despite which he did not comply the office objections. As such, on 11.02.2021, as a final last opportunity, a week's time as prayed was granted. Despite the same, for ten months, even after granting as a final last opportunity repeatedly, the appellant has not complied the office objections. As such, I am of the view that even on terms also, adjournment cannot be granted.
As such, the Appeal stands dismissed for non-compliance of office objections.
Sd/-
JUDGE MBB