Karnataka State Electronics ... vs Baron Electronics Pvt Ltd
2021 Latest Caselaw 6881 Kant

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

  DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

                     BEFORE

THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY

       REGULAR FIRST APPEAL No.768 OF 2018

BETWEEN:

KARNATAKA STATE ELECTRONICS DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LIMITED (KEONICS)
2ND FLOOR, BMTC COMPLEX,
SHANTI NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 002,
REPRESENTED THROUGH AUTHORIZED OFFICER,
SRI SHIVAKUMAR, S/O KOTRAPPA KARDKAL,
AGE 59 YEARS, OCC: MANAGER,
KARNATAKA STATE ELECTRONICS
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED,
2ND FLOOR, BMTC COMPLEX,
SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU.              ..APPELLANT

(BY SRI DEEPAK S SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

AND:

  1. BARON ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.,
     NO.6, 1ST FLOOR, M.S.LANE,
     S.P.ROAD CROSS, BENGALURU-560002,
     REPRESENTED BY IT MANAGING DIRECTOR,
     MR.SHAWARLAL.

  2. M/S ARPANA INVESTMENT,
     6TH MILE, HOSUR ROAD,
     PUPANE AGRAHARA, MADIWALA POST,
     BENGALURU - 560 068
                                                    RFA No. 768/2018
                                   2


      REPRESENTED BY ITS
      MANAGING DIRECTOR.                        ..RESPONDENTS

      THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC.,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 15.09.2017
PASSED IN OS NO.1501/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.
CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE,
DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION.

     THIS R.F.A. COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THROUGH
PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:


                                ORDER

Learned counsel for the appellant who is physically

present in the Court prays for a week's accommodation to

comply the office objections, stating that after he

complying the office objections, some more office

objections have subsequently been raised by the registry

and as such, he required some more time to comply the

office objections.

2. A perusal of the order sheet would go to show

that in this appeal of the year 2018, several and sufficient

opportunities of not less than seven times have already

been granted to the appellant to comply the office RFA No. 768/2018

objections. Opportunities like finally and as a last chance,

etc., were all given to him. Even though the learned

counsel for the appellant submits that after he complying

all the office objections, subsequently, the present

outstanding office objections were raised, but a perusal of

the order sheet negatives the same. Though, there are

few office objections which were raised subsequently,

however some of the earlier office objections are also yet

to be complied with.

4. Even after raising of the subsequent office

objections, this Court on several dates of hearing had

granted time to comply the same, in which regard, the

order sheet dated 16.01.2021, 29.01.2021 and

11.02.2021 can be looked into which are self explanatory.

A detailed reasoned order was passed on all these

days. As long back as on 16.01.2021, making it clear

that no further adjournment would be granted, imposing

a cost of `500/-, though the Court had

granted the time, as prayed for by the appellant RFA No. 768/2018

even thereafter, on 29.01.2021, once again, heeding to

the request of the learned counsel for the appellant, as a

last chance, ten (10) days time as prayed for was granted

to comply the office objections, despite which he did not

comply the office objections. As such, on 11.02.2021, as a

final last opportunity, a week's time as prayed was

granted. Despite the same, for ten months, even after

granting as a final last opportunity repeatedly, the

appellant has not complied the office objections. As such,

I am of the view that even on terms also, adjournment

cannot be granted.

As such, the Appeal stands dismissed for

non-compliance of office objections.

Sd/-

JUDGE

MBB