The appellant failed to appear or explain non-appearance. The court noted the appeal dated 2015 remained dormant despite prior reminders, and dismissed it for non-prosecution.
The appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution and failure to take steps for service of notice on respondents.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2024:KHC:648-DB MFA No. 9198 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024 PRESENT
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 9198 OF 2015 (SFC)
BETWEEN:
SRI.S.KUPPUSWAMY S/O SIVANANDAM, NO.155/1, ARMSTRONG ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. R K KOTHANDAPANI., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by VEENA KUMARI B Location: High Court of Karnataka
NC: 2024:KHC:648-DB MFA No. 9198 of 2015
INDIRANAGAR, BENGALURU -560038.
NC: 2024:KHC:648-DB MFA No. 9198 of 2015
NO.77, GOVINDARAJANAGAR, NAGARABHAVI ROAD, VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 079
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAJESH SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. B. MARTIN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R6)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S 32(9) OF STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED13.11.2015 PASSED IN MISC. NO.699/1999 ON THE FILE OF THE XXXVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIOL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-38), BANGALORE CITY, ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED U/S 31(1)(aa) & 32 OF SFC ACT.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, DR. H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY, J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
None appear in this matter either physically or through video conference. No reasons are forthcoming for
NC: 2024:KHC:648-DB MFA No. 9198 of 2015
nonappearance of learned counsels in the matter particularly of learned counsel for the appellant.
"None appear in the matter either physically or through Video Conference.
The appeal is of the year 2015 and till date, the appellant has not taken steps to ensure the service of notice upon the unserved respondents and to comply the office objections on I.A.1/2018.
As such, finally two days time is granted to do the needful, failing which, the Court may proceed to pass appropriate orders, including dismissal of the appeal for non-compliance of office objections, as well for non-prosecution.
List the matter on 05.01.2024."
3. In spite of the above, appellant has neither
taken steps to ensure the service of notice as against unserved respondents including bringing the legal representatives of alleged deceased respondent No.7 nor appeared and shown any reason for not doing needful in
NC: 2024:KHC:648-DB MFA No. 9198 of 2015
the matter. This clearly goes to show that appellant is not interested in prosecuting this appeal which is of the year 2015 as such, one of the old appeal pending before this roster.
Hence, appeal stands dismissed for not taking steps,
as well, for nonprosecution.
Sd/JUDGE
Sd/JUDGE
BVK
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the impugned appeal should be allowed given non-appearance of counsels and failure to prosecute for years?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
SRI.S.KUPPUSWAMY S/O SIVANANDAM
M/S. KARNATAKA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION
M/S. VEEAAR TYPES ON LINE (P) LTD
SRI.V.DALAPATHY S/O VENKATESHULU
S.BALASUBRAMANYAM S/O SIVANANDAM
SMT.N.SHANKARI W/O KUPPUSWAMY
H.B. PRABHAKARA SASTRY
RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
