Ramee Sugar & Infrastructure vs The Managing Director
2022 Latest Caselaw 3342 Kant

                           1




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                        BEFORE

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK.S.KINAGI

     MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.444 OF 2019 (AA)

BETWEEN:

RAMEE SUGAR & INFRASTRUCTURE
PRIVATE LIMITED,
R.O.AT 398/22, RAMEE CENTRE,
NORTH AVENUE, SANTACRUZ (W),
MUMBAI - 400 054.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORISED SIGNATORY,
NISCHITH SHETTY.
                                       ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADV.)

AND:

1.    THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
      DAKSHINA KANNADA SAHAKARI
      SAKKARE KARKHANE NIYAMITA,
      BRAHMAVARA -572 103,
      UDUPI TALUK.

2.    JUSTICE T.JAYARAMA CHOUTA (RTD.),
      SOLE ARBITRATOR,
      NO.385, 5TH MAIN ROAD,
      11TH CROSS, RAJ MAHAL VILAS II STAGE,
      BENGALURU - 560 072.
                                       ...RESPONDENTS
                                2




     THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(a) OF
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND
SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 11.10.2018 MADE ON
I.A.NO.I IN A.S.NO.79/2012 BY THE COURT OF VI
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU CITY (CCH         11) IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE.

     THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR 'ORDERS' THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                      JUDGMENT

The appellant has filed this appeal on

10.01.2019. The matter was listed before this Court

on 10.06.2019. On that day, three weeks time was

granted for compliance of office objections. Again, the

matter was listed on 26.08.2019 and two weeks time

was granted for compliance of office objections.

Again, the matter was listed on 20.02.2020 and on

that day, at the request of the learned counsel for the

appellant two weeks time was granted finally to

comply with the office objections. If the office

objections are not complied within such a period, the

appeal shall be listed for dismissal.

2. Till today, learned counsel for the appellant

has not complied with the office objections.

3. Inspite of granting sufficient opportunity,

the learned counsel for the appellant did not comply

with the office objections.

4. The appeal is of the year 2019. The

appellant has failed to comply with the office

objections for more than two years. It seems that the

appellant is 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