Smt Muniyamma v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC15 Apr 2026WA/782/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

condonation of delay 597 days; IA No.1/2015 rejected; writ appeal dismissed at admission stage; adjournment refused to proxy counsel; vakalathnama not filed; WA No. 782 of 2015 (BDA); Section 4 Karnataka High Court Act; order dated 06.06.2013 in WP No.36515/2012 (BDA) challenged; R3 and R4 impleaded 03.02.2025; R2 served unrepresented; High Court of Karnataka; Jayant Banerji and Rajesh Rai K, JJ.; decision dated 15.04.2026.

What did the court decide?

The adjournment sought by the proxy counsel was declined, since adjournment had been sought on the previous date also for the same purpose (filing of the vakalathnama), and the proxy counsel, when asked to proceed, was unable to argue the matter. ¶51

Smt Muniyamma Vs the Commissioner — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:20507-DB WA No. 782 of 2015

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI

¶8

AND

¶9

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K WRIT APPEAL NO. 782 OF 2015 (BDA)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SMT.MUNIYAMMA,

¶12

AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, W/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA,

¶13

SMT.MUNILAKSHMI, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, W/O VENKATESH,

¶14

Digitally signed by KAVYA G Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

SMT. SARASWATHI, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, D/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA,

¶16

APPELLANT NOS.1 TO 3 ARE R/AT: NO.8, 1^ST CROSS, NAGARBHAVI, A.K.COLONY, BANGALORE-560 072.

¶17

SMT. POOJAMMA, SINCE DEAD WITHOUT ANY ISSUES,

¶18

SRI.VENKATARAJU, SINCE DEAD WITHOUT ANY ISSUES,

¶19

¶20

NC: 2026:KHC:20507-DB WA No. 782 of 2015

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

SRI.MUNIYA @ NAGARAJ, SINCE DEAD WITHOUT ANY ISSUES,

¶23

APPELLANTS NOS.4 TO 6 ARE R/AT: HALAGEVADERAHALLI VILLAGE, KENGERI HOBLI, BANGALORE-560 072.

¶24

APPELLANT NOS.1 TO 6 ARE REP. BY THEIR GPA HOLDER, SRI.M.NAGARAJ,S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/A.NO.199/3, 2^ND MAIN ROAD, MALLAPPA LAYOUT, CHALUKYA NAGAR, NAGARABHAVI MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE-560 072.

¶25

…APPELLANTS

¶26

(BY SRI.VENKATESH.L., AVOCATE FOR SRI.VIJAYA SHEKARA GOWDA.V., ADVOCATE FOR A1 TO A3)

¶27

AND:

¶28

THE COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE-560 020.

¶29

M/S LAKSHMI MALLEABLE MANUFACTURERS PVT. LTD., REPRESENTED BY M.R.RAJATH, S/O LATE M.RAMACHANDRA, MAJOR, R/A NO.43, 5^TH CROSS, RMV EXTENSION, BANGALORE-560 039.

¶30

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:20507-DB WA No. 782 of 2015

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

M/S. SWAMY ENTERPRISES, A PROPRIETARY CONCERN, HAVING OFFICE AT NO.3, 5^TH MAIN ROAD, R.P.C.LAYOUT, SANKASTAHARA GANAPATHI TEMPLE ROAD, HAMPINAGAR, BENGALURU -560 104, REPRESETNED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, MR.S.V.HALLASWAMY.

¶33

M.S.M.C.I (BANGALORE) CHITS LTD., A REGISTERED COMPANY, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.B-104,

¶34

1^ST FLOOR, BRIGADE MAJESTIC,

¶35

1^ST MAIN, KALIDASA MARG, GANDHINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 009, REPRESETNED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, MR.B.SHIVALINGAPPA.

¶36

(V/O DTD.03.02.2025 R3 AND R4 IMPLEADED)

¶37

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.B.S.SACHIN., ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI.M.M.SWAMY., ADVOCATE FOR R3 AND R4; R2 SERVED UNREPRESENTED)

¶38

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.36515/2012 (BDA) DATED 06.06.2013.

¶39

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶40

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI AND

¶41

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

¶42

¶43

NC: 2026:KHC:20507-DB WA No. 782 of 2015

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶46

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI)

¶47

When this appeal was listed on 25.03.2026, the following order was passed:

¶48

“It is again prayed by the proxy counsel for adjournment to enable the counsel for the appellants to file the vakalathnama.

¶49

As prayed, list on 15.04.2026 with the understanding that the matter may be adjourned when it is listed next.”

¶50

Today, Sri. Venkatesh L (KAR-1770/2022), the proxy counsel is present, who seeks for an adjournment.

¶51

It is noted that, on the previous date also an adjournment was sought by the proxy counsel to enable the counsel for the appellant to file the vakalathnama. As such, we decline to grant an adjournment as sought for. The proxy counsel was asked to proceed with the matter. He is unable to argue the matter.

¶52