Dismissed¶30

Sri Srinivas Murthy @ Kns Murthy v. Transystems Logistics International Pvt. Ltd.

Karnataka HC3 Nov 2025WP/44971/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Non-prosecution dismissal of a 2013 writ petition (L-TER category) filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India; petitioner Srinivas Murthy @ KNS Murthy absent and unrepresented after counsel L. Muralidhar Peshwa's retirement on 28.10.2025; respondent Transystems Logistics International Pvt. Ltd. represented by Smt. Roopashri for Sri. Somashekar; single judge Jyoti M; pending interlocutory applications disposed of and interim orders discharged.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner, called thrice and absent without counsel or in-person representation in a petition pending since 2013, appeared not interested in prosecuting the petition. ¶29

Sri Srinivas Murthy @ Kns Murthy Vs Transystems… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:43974 WP No. 44971 of 2013

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 44971 OF 2013 (L-TER)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. SRINIVAS MURTHY @ KNS MURTHY, S/O. LATE NARASAHANUMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT KUMBIPALYA, BYATHA POST, HURUDIGERE HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT, TUMKUR-572140.

…PETITIONER

(ABSENT)

AND:

Digitally signed by THEJAS KUMAR N

¶13

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

TRANSYSTEMS LOGISTICS INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, TOYOTA TECHNO PARK, NO.20, BIDADI INDUSTRIAL AREA, RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT-562109.

¶15

…RESPONDENT (BY SMT. ROOPASHRI, ADVOCATGE FOR SRI. SOMASHEKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:43974 WP No. 44971 of 2013

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

The name of the petitioner is called out thrice in the open Court, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner, either personally or through video conferencing. The petitioner is absent.

¶23

Smt.Roopasri.S., counsel on behalf of Sri.Somashekar., counsel for the respondent has appeared through video conferencing.

¶24

As could be seen from the daily order sheet, the petition was listed on 28.10.2025. On that day, taking note of the memo and affidavit, counsel Sri.L.Muralidhar Peshwa., was permitted to retire from the case and the office was directed to print the name of the petitioner in the cause list and the petition was ordered to be listed on 03.11.2025.

¶25

The petition is listed today by printing the name of the petitioner in the cause list. As already noted above, the name of the petitioner is called out thrice in the open Court, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner, either personally

¶26

¶27

NC: 2025:KHC:43974 WP No. 44971 of 2013

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

or through video conferencing. The petitioner has neither engaged the services of a counsel nor conducted the case as a party in person. As could be seen from the petition papers, the petition is filed in 2013. Now we are in the month of November, 2025. The petition is pending from twelve years. It appears that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the petition. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution.

¶30

Because of dismissal of the Writ Petition, pending interlocutory applications, if any, stands disposed of and interim order, if any, stands discharged.

¶31

Sd/(JYOTI M) JUDGE

¶32

MRP,KMV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14

Sri Srinivas Murthy @ Kns Murthy v. Transystems Logistics International Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Srinivas Murthy @ Kns Murthy v. Transystems Logistics International Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Venkateshappa Vs Sri Srinivasa

M/S Adarsh Developers Vs State Ofkarnataka

M/S. Pragathi Finance and Investments (R) Kumbashiu Vs K v N Upadhyaya

M.Rama Vs State of Karnataka

Teachers Cooperative Bank Ltd. Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Mangu Khan Vs the Central Silk Board