Karnataka High Court
Mr. Ashwin Ajila vs Jet Airways (India) Private Limited on 12 January, 2022
Author: B.Veerappa
Bench: B.Veerappa
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.VEERAPPA
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1718/2017 (MON)
BETWEEN:
1. MR. ASHWIN AJILA
PARTNER,
NEW INTERNATIONAL HOUSE OF TRAVEL,
NO 71, SANJEEVNI,
RMV II STAGE, 3RD MAIN ROAD,
4TH CROSS ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560094
2. NEW INTERNATIONAL HOUSE OF TRAVEL,
TOONSKOOL,
NO. 371, 1ST FLOOR,
8TH MAIN, SADASHIVANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560080
REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER
MR ASHWIN AJILA
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI VENKATESH S.ARBATTI, ADV.)
AND:
1. JET AIRWAYS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED
(FORMERLY KNOWN AS JET AIRWAYS
INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED)
S M CENTER, ANDHERI KURCH ROAD,
ANDHERI (EAST) MUMBAI - 400059
2
REPRESENTED BY ITS
GENERAL COUNSEL AND
VICE PRESIDENT-LEGAL AND
GPA HOLDER ASHOK B KUMAR
2. JETAIR PRIVATE LIMITED
HAVING LOCAL OFFICE AT
SUNRISE CHAMBERS,
NO.22, ULSOOR ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560042
ANDHERI (EAST) MUMBAI - 400059
REPRESENTED BY ITS GPA HOLDER
DR SURESH C NERKAR
GENERAL MANAGER HRD
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI W.M.SUNDARAMURTHY, ADV. FOR C/R-1.)
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 21.6.2017 PASSED IN OS NO.25513/2008 ON THE FILE
FO THE XXVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, MAYO HALL,
BANGALORE, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY.
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, B.VEERAPPA J, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
None appears for the appellants.
2. Inspite of the specific order passed by this Court dated 23.04.2021 granting four weeks time to comply with the office objections including payment of court fee, failing 3 which, the matter would be posted for dismissal of the appeal.
3. Neither there is any representation on behalf of the appellants nor there is any compliance of office objections even on 7th occasion. As such, we have no option except to dismiss the appeal for non compliance of office objections.
In view of the above, appeal is dismissed for non compliance of office objections.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE Chs CT-HR