Sunday, 10, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

M/S Peenya Industrial Gases Pvt. ... vs M/S Fiem Industries Ltd
2022 Latest Caselaw 2089 Kant

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 2089 Kant
Judgement Date : 9 February, 2022

Karnataka High Court
M/S Peenya Industrial Gases Pvt. ... vs M/S Fiem Industries Ltd on 9 February, 2022
Bench: M.I.Arun
                         1


 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

      DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                      BEFORE

          THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

     REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1656 OF 2013 (MON)

BETWEEN:

M/S PEENYA INDUSTRIAL
GASES PVT. LTD.,
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT 1956,
AND HAVING ITS REGISTERED
OFFICE AT 8, 8TH MAIN,
MATHIKERE EXTENSION,
BANGALORE - 560 054,
AND BRANCH OFFICE AT:
PLOT NO.76A, SIPCOT INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX,
HOSUR - 635 126.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
MR. K.N. RAVI KUMAR,
S/O MR.K.M. NARAYAN,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
RESIDING AT FLAT NO.191,
1ST FLOOR, "PREM SADANA",
9TH CROSS, MEC LAYOUT,
LAGGERE, PEENYA,
BANGALORE - 560 058.
                                    ... APPELLANT
(BY SMT.A.YOGASHREE AND
    SRI.K.S.VENKATARAMANA, ADVOCATES (ABSENT))

AND:

1.     M/S FIEM INDUSTRIES LTD.,
       REGD. OFFICE & CORPORATE
       OFFICE NO.D-34,
                         2


     DSIDC PACKAGING COMPLEX,
     KIRTHINAGAR, NEW DELHI - 110 015.
     REPRESENTED BY ITS
     MANAGING DIRECTOR.

2.   M/S. FIEM INDUSTRIES LTD (UNIT-II),
     WORKS: 219/2-B, HOSUR-THALLY ROAD,
     KALUKONDAPALLI, BELGONDAPALLI (P.O),
     HOSUR - 635 114,
     REPRESENTED BY ITS
     MANAGING DIRECTOR.

3.   M/S. FIEM INDUSTRIES LTD (UNIT-III),
     WORKS: KELAMANGALAM ROAD,
     ANCHETTIPALLI, HOSUR C F,
     HOSUR - 635 110,
     MANAGING DIRECTOR.

4.   MR.JOGA SHYAM SUNDER RAO,
     S/O JOGA KONDAL RAO,
     DIRECTOR, M/S. FIEM INDUSTRIES LTD.,
     RESIDING AT GROUND FLOOR-9,
     BLOCK - 1, SOUTH CITY - II,
     GURGAON - 110 048, HARYANA.

5.   MR. KULDEEP SINGH LAMBA,
     DIRECTOR, M/S. FIEM INDUSTRIES LTD.,
     D-34, DSIDC PACKAGING COMPLEX,
     KIRTHINAGAR,
     NEW DELHI - 110 015.

6.   MR.JAGJEEVAN KUMAR JAIN,
     MANAGING DIRECTOR,
     M/S. FIEM INDUSTRIES LTD.,
     R/AT NO.D-4, RAJOURI GARDEN,
     NEW DELHI - 110 027.

7.   MR. JASMIT SINGH CHANDHOK,
     S/O MR. GURUCHARAN SINGH CHANDHOK,
     DIRECTOR, M/S. FIEM INDUSTRIES LTD.,
     NO.B-39, GREATER KAILASH, PART-1,
     NEW DELHI - 110 048.
                         3



8.    MS. SEEMA JAIN,
      DIRECTOR, M/S. FIEM INDUSTRIES LTD.,
      NO. D-4, RAJOURI GARDEN,
      NEW DELHI - 110 027.

9.    MR. AANCHAL JAIN,
      DIRECTOR, M/S. FIEM INDUSTRIES LTD.,
      NO.D-4, RAJOURI GARDEN,
      NEW DELHI - 110 027.

10.   MR. RAHUL JAIN,
      DIRECTOR, M/S. FIEM INDUSTRIES LTD.,
      NO.D-4, RAJOURI GARDEN,
      NEW DELHI - 110 027.

11.   MR. PRAVIN KUMAR,
      DIRECTOR, M/S. FIEM INDUSTRIES LTD.,
      NO.307, REGENCY ENCLAVE NO.4,
      MC GRATH ROAD,
      BANGALORE - 560 025.

12.   MR. IQBAL SING,
      DIRECTOR, M/S. FIEM INDUSTRIES LTD.,
      59/7, NEW ROHTAK ROAD,
      NEW DELHI - 110 005.

13.   MR. PARAMJIT SINGH BHATIA,
      DIRECTOR, M/S. FIEM INDUSTRIES LTD.,
      NO.F-165, RAJOURI GARDEN,
      NEW DELHI - 110 027.

14.  MR. CHATTAR SINGH KOTHARI,
     DIRECTOR, M/S. FIEM INDUSTRIES LTD.,
     2ND FLOOR, D-2/3, RANA PRATAP BAGH,
     NEW DELHI - 110 009.
                                  ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.B.K.SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R-4, R6,
    R8 TO R10;
    R5, R7, R11 AND R13 ARE SERVED AND
    UNREPRESENTED)
                             4


      THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
5.7.2013 PASSED IN O.S.NO.1585/2008 ON THE FILE
OF THE XXX ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE,
DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY.

     THIS RFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THROUGH
VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY THE COURT
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                      JUDGMENT

The appeal is of the year 2013. The appellant

has not taken steps in respect of unserved

respondents till today.

2. It is also noticed that the advocate for the

appellant is irregular in attending the Court. Today

also the appellant is unrepresented. It appears that

the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the

appeal.

Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed for

non-prosecution.

Sd/-

JUDGE

AG

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter