IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. L. NARAYANA SWAMY ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.695 OF 2018 (S-RES) BETWEEN:
SMITA ARORA D/O Dr. RAJ KUMAR ARORA AGED 37 YEARS R/AT E302, R & S RIVIERA NEXT TO MANYATA TECH PARK BACK GATE 5 HEBBAL 45.
... APPELLANT (BY SRI K.S. CHANDRAKANTH GOWDA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER NOKIA CORPORATION PVT. LTD. MANYATA TECH PARK HEBBAL BENGALURU – 45.
2. HEAD OF HUMAN RESOURCES NOKIA CORPORATION PVT. LTD. MANYATA TECH PARK HEBBAL BENGALURU – 45.
3. ICC COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY MRS. SONIA MATHEWS [PRESIDING OFFICER, ICC] AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 4. SUMANTA BANERJEE AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS TECHNICAL MANAGER ALCATEL-LUCENT (NOW NOKIA) NOKIA CORPORATION PVT. LTD. MANYATA TECH PARK HEBBAL BENGALURU – 45.
5. USHA PADMINI AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS DIRECTOR ALCATEL-LUCENT (NOW NOKIA) NOKIA CORPORATION PVT. LTD. MANYATA TECH PARK HEBBAL BENGALURU – 45.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. PALLAN SMRITI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI MANU KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2; SRI JOSEPH ANTHONY & SMT. MONICA PATIL, ADVOCATES FOR R3;
SRI AJAY SHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4 & R5) ---
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 29.11.2016 PASSED BY HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA IN W.P.NO.23713/2016 (S-RES) AND ETC., THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, P.S. DINESH KUMAR J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Heard.
2. In this appeal, the appellant has challenged order dated 29.11.2016 passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge in W.P.No.23713/2016.
3. Learned advocate for respondents No.1 and 2 submits that the very order was challenged by the appellant herein before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Diary No.21156/2017. By order dated 22.09.2017, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal by recording thus:
“ Heard petitioner who appeared in person. Delay condoned.
We do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order.
The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.”
4. Since the matter has been considered on merits by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in our considered view, this appeal is not maintainable and accordingly, it is dismissed.
In view of dismissal of this appeal, the pending interlocutory applications do not survive for consideration and they are also dismissed.
No costs.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE ca