Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Karnataka
  4. /
  5. 2019
  6. /
  7. January

M/S Damden Properties And Others vs M/S Mundhra Lighting Centre No

High Court Of Karnataka|24 April, 2019
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH 2016 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE A. N. VENUGOPALA GOWDA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.480 OF 2015 BETWEEN:
1. M/S. DAMDEN PROPERTIES REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS, 2. DAMLA T MATHEW S/O THOMAS, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, PARTNER OF M/S. DAMDEN, PROPERTIES, 3. DENIS T BASIL S/O THOMAS, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, PARTNER OF M/S DAMDEN PROPERTIES, ALL ARE RESIDING AT PENT HOUSE, NO.7/27, 4TH CROSS, VENKAESHWARA LAYOUT, TAVARAKERE MAIN ROAD, NEAR BIG BAZAAR, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-560 029 (BY SRI N.KUMAR, ADV.,) ... APPELLANTS AND:
M/S MUNDHRA LIGHTING CENTRE NO.16, SAJJANSHAN MARKET, CHICKPET, BANGALORE-560 053 REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SRI R.G. MUNDRA S/O SRI C.L.MUNDRA, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, ... RESPONDENT THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTIONG 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED: 14.07.2014 PASSED IN OS NO.2528/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE XX ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, DECREED THE SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY.
THIS RFA IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Despite peremptory order dated 22.02.2016, there is non compliance of office objections. Learned advocate for the appellants again seeks time for compliance.
There is no justification. Hence, the appeal is dismissed for non prosecution.
Sd/- JUDGE HJ
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

M/S Damden Properties And Others vs M/S Mundhra Lighting Centre No

Court

High Court Of Karnataka

JudgmentDate
24 April, 2019
Judges
  • A N Venugopala Gowda