IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 12th DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT WRIT APPEAL No.1631 OF 2008 (T-ET) BETWEEN 1. CAUVERY THEATRE NO.8/1 SANKEY ROAD, BANGALORE 560003, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR N.PRAKASH, AGED 45 YEARS.
2. KAILASH THEATRE NO.5, (89/1), 5TH MAIN, 1ST CROSS, GANDHINAGAR, BANGALORE 560009 REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SRI P.NARAYAN REDDY, AGED 55 YEARS, 3. URVASHI THEATRE SURVEY.NO.10/1, 10/2, 10/3, 10/4, H.SIDDAIAH ROAD, BANGALORE 560027, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SRI K.C.RUDRE GOWDA, AGED 67 YEARS.
4. PALLAVI THEATRE SAMPIGE TANK ROAD, BANGALORE 560027, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SRI T.RAMAKRISHNA, AGED 65 YEARS, 5. TRIBHUVAN THEATRE NO.5, (89/1), 5TH MAIN, 1ST CROSS, GANDHINAGAR BANGALORE 560009, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SRI.P.NARAYAN REDDY, AGED 55 YEARS 6. PVR THEATRE SURVEY NO.152 AND 67/2, 67/3, 67/4, AND 67/5, OF ADUGODI VILLAGE BEGUR HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, NEW CORPORATION WARD NO.21, HOSUR ROAD, BANGALORE REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, VISHAL VIKRAM, AGED 30 YEARS ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI K V DHANANJAY, ADVOCATE - ABSENT) AND 1. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING, ROOM NO.655, 'A' WING, SHASTRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI 110 001 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE 560001 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, VANIJYA TERIGE KARYALAYA 1 (COMMERCIAL) GANDHINAGAR BANGALORE 560009.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI V.Y.KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1, SRI VIKRAM HUILGOL, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3.) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.19802 OF 2007 DATED 17/09/2008.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT None appears for the appellants nor any representation is made, even though matter was called on two occasions. The appellants’ counsel was absent on previous dates on 17.01.2019 as well as on 27.08.2018.
2. It is apparent that the appellants are not interested in prosecuting this appeal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE VM CT-HR