Nazeerahamed S Inamdar vs The Union Of India
2022 Latest Caselaw 3016 Kant

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022

                          BEFORE

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

              M. F. A. NO.249 OF 2020 (RCT)
BETWEEN:

1.     NAZEERAHAMED S INAMDAR,
       S/O SHAHASAB INAMDAR,
       AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
       OCC: AUTO DRIVER,

2.     SMT.DILSHAD,
       W/O NAZEERAHAMED S INAMDAR,
       AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,

       BOTH ARE R/O LAKSHMI NAGARA,
       KAKATHI VILLAGE,
       TALUK AND DIST.: BELGAUM.
                                              ...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.JAGADEESH GOUD PATIL, ADV., FOR
    SRI.MALLIKARJUNA G CONTRACTOR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE UNION OF INDIA,
REPRESENTED BY GENERAL MANAGER,
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY,
HUBLI.
                                          ...RESPONDENT

     THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 23(1) OF RAILWAY
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ACT, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED
31.07.2017, PASSED IN NO.OA II U 57/2013, ON THE FILE OF
THE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU BENCH, CLAIM
                                2



APPLICATION IS NOT ALLOWED AND DISMISSED AS                 PER
FINDINGS AND SPEAKING ORDER IN FOREGOING PARAS.

     THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                         JUDGMENT

The appellants have filed this appeal on 30.10.2019.

The matter was listed before this Court on 07.01.2021. On

that day, two weeks time was granted for compliance of

office objections. Again, the matter was listed on 05.03.2021

and four weeks time was granted to comply with the office

objections. Again, the matter was listed on 14.01.2022 and

finally, three weeks time was granted to comply with the

office objections, failing which, the appeal shall be listed for

dismissal on 04.02.2022. On 04.02.2022, this Court finally

granted two weeks time to comply with the office objections,

failing which, the appeal shall be listed for dismissal on

22.02.2022.

2. Even today, learned counsel for the appellants

seeks time for compliance of the office objections.

3. Inspite of granting sufficient opportunity, the

learned counsel for the appellants did not comply with the

office objections.

4. The appeal is of the year 2020. Even from the last

1½ year, the learned counsel for the appellants did not

comply with the office objections. It seems that the

appellants are not interested in prosecuting the appeal.

In view of the peremptory order, the appeal is

dismissed for non-compliance of office objections.

SD/-

JUDGE

ssb