Mr Mansoor Naghnoor v. M/S Imperium Constructions Pvt. Ltd.
Case brief
What is this about?
Writ petition dismissed for non-prosecution as the petitioner failed to appear despite prior orders.
Writ petition dismissed for non-prosecution as the petitioner failed to appear despite prior orders.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 3246 OF 2017 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
MR. MANSOOR NAGHNOOR, S/O M.N. NAGHNOOR, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/AT NO.26, SITUATED AT 5TH MAIN ROAD, JAYAMAHAL EXTENSION CORPORATION, WARD NO.92, BANGALORE.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. DECKLYN GOMES, ADVOCATE (ABSENT))
AND:
Digitally signed by NARAYANAPPA LAKSHMAMMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
M/S IMPERIUM CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD., A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.18, SALESH CENTRE, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 052.
REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS DIRECTOR SYED NAJMUL HASSAN, BANGALORE - 560 046. REPRESENTED BY HIS GPA HOLDER MR. KUMAR R/AT NO.18, SALEH CENTRE, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 052.
NC: 2024:KHC:9473 WP No. 3246 of 2017
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. C. GOWRISHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS ON THE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AT BANGALORE IN SC NO.1240/2016 AND AFTER GOING THROUGH THE LEGALITY, PROPRIETY OR OTHERWISE OF THE SAME, PASS AN ORDER ON THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 340 READ WITH SECTION 195 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 1973 VIDE ANNEXURE-T HEREIN AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Despite the order dated 27.02.2024, none appears for the petitioner today also. Steps in respect of respondent No.2 is also not taken. It appears that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the matter. Hence, the petition is dismissed for non-prosecution.
Sd/-
JUDGE
YKL
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mr. Mansoor Naghnoor
M/s Imperium Constructions Pvt Ltd.
Mr. Pinto
Suraj Govindaraj
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court