M/S Seethalakshmi Infra Developers Vs Smt Suma Kanchan

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:29211 WP No. 28158 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 28158 OF 2025 (L-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

M/S. SEETHALAKSHMI INFRA DEVELOPERS, A SOLE PROPRIETARY CONCERN REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SRI. SURESH R.SHETTY, HAVING OFFICE AT 'AYODHYA', LINK ROAD, KAUP, UDUPI - 574106.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. S.M.ANFAL, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K.PRASANNA SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SMT. SUMA KANCHAN, W/O. YUVARAJ KOTIAN, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, REPRESENTED BY HER HUSBAND AND SPA HOLDER, SRI. YUVARAJ KOTIAN, R/AT NO.6-100, BADA TENKA, YERMAL, UDUPI - 574119.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SMT. SHILPA M.R., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. KIRAN N., ADVOCATE)

¶16

2 -

¶17

NC: 2026:KHC:29211 WP No. 28158 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

Sri.S.M.Anfal, counsel on behalf of Sri.K.Prasanna Shetty, for the petitioner and Smt.Shilpa M.R., counsel on behalf of Sri.Kiran.N., for the respondent, appeared in person.

¶23

For convenience’s sake, the parties shall be referred to by their status and ranking before the Labor Court.

¶24

The award dated:09.09.2024 passed by the Court of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Udupi, in K.I.D.No.04/2023, is called into question in this Writ Petition on several grounds as set out in the memorandum of writ petition.

¶25

Counsel for the respective parties urged several

¶26

contentions.

¶27

The main ground on which this Court is asked to quash the award of the Labor Court is that the notice was not

¶28

3 -

¶29

NC: 2026:KHC:29211 WP No. 28158 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

served on the respondent. Counsel for the petitioner pointed out the order sheet dated 12.12.2023 and 19.01.2024, arguing that the Labor Court issued the notice to the respondent on 12.12.2023. However, on 19.01.2024, it was noted in the order sheet that the notice to the respondent was served through his son, and the Court did not mention that the service of notice was sufficient, nor that he had been served. Therefore, the respondent has been deprived of an opportunity to contest the matter on the merits. Hence, the matter requires a remand for fresh consideration.

¶32

Counsel for the respondent justified the award and submitted that sufficient opportunity had been afforded, with notice duly served through the respondent’s son. However, as the case remained unrepresented, the Court proceeded to hear the matter and passed the award. Counsel therefore contends that the writ petition is devoid of merit and prays that it be dismissed.

¶33

Heard the arguments and perused the papers with

¶34

care.

¶35

4 -

¶36

NC: 2026:KHC:29211 WP No. 28158 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

The order sheet is furnished along with the writ petition, and the same is marked as Annexure-E. A perusal of the same reflects that the Labor Court issued notice to the respondent on 12.12.2023, and the case was adjourned to 19.01.2024. In the order sheet dated 19.01.2024, there is a note that notice to the respondent was served through the son; the respondent called out absent, and the case was posted for evidence of the petitioner. However, there is no note about the sufficiency of service of notice to the respondent. Because the respondent has been deprived of the right to contest the matter on the merits of the case, the matter requires remand. For the foregoing reasons, the award of the Labor Court is liable to be quashed.

¶39

The writ of certiorari is ordered. The award dated 09.09.2024, passed by the Court of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Udupi, in K.I.D. No. 04/2023 is quashed. The matter is remanded for fresh consideration. The parties are directed to appear before the Labor Court on July 14, 2026, without awaiting further notice.

¶40

5 -

¶41

NC: 2026:KHC:29211 WP No. 28158 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

A gentle request is made to the Labor Court to

¶44

dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible within an outer limit of one year from today. The parties are directed to cooperate for the speedy disposal of the case.

¶45

Resultantly, the Writ Petition is disposed of .

¶46

SD/(JYOTI M) JUDGE

¶47

MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44

M/S Seethalakshmi Infra Developers v. Smt Suma Kanchan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Seethalakshmi Infra Developers v. Smt Suma Kanchan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Subhash Yadav Vs Central Silk Board

Shri Ramdayal Mahto Vs Central Silk Board

Karnataka State Handicraft Development Corporation Limited Vs Government of Karnataka

Canara Bank Vs M/.S Rajesh Exports Limited

Sumangali Seva Ashrama Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Rajesh Exports Limited Vs Branch in Charge