M/S Vision Developers And ... vs M/S Sri Kanaka Kaginele
2022 Latest Caselaw 8230 Kant

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 8230 Kant
Judgement Date : 6 June, 2022

Karnataka High Court

M/S Vision Developers And ... vs M/S Sri Kanaka Kaginele on 6 June, 2022

Bench: Alok Aradhe, J.M.Khazi

                              1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

          DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE 2022

                         PRESENT

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

                             AND

           THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE J.M. KHAZI

               M.F.A. NO.6741 OF 2017 (AA)
BETWEEN:

1.     M/S. VISION DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS
       I ST CROSS, P & T COLONY
       R.T. NAGAR, BENGALURU-560032
       REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER.

2.     C.S. BIRADAR PATIL
       AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
       MANAGING PARTNER.

3.     SUNIL B. PATIL
       AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
       M/S. VISION DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS

       BOTH ARE AT NO.21
       I CROSS, P & T COLONY
       R.T. NAGAR, BENGALURU-560032.
                                             ... APPELLANTS
(BY MR. ADVOCATE ABSENT)

AND:

1.     M/S. SRI. KANAKA KAGINELE
       HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY (R)
       NO.791, 4TH STAGE, 13TH MAIN
       T.K. LAYOUT, MYSURU
       REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.
                                2



2.   SMT. V. SHARADA
     SOLE ARBITRATOR
     MYSURU.

                                              ... RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. R.V. SRINIVASA REDDY, ADV., FOR R1)
                           ---

     THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 37(1)(C) OF THE

ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, AGAINST THE ORDER

DATED 19.04.2017, PASSED IN A.S.NO.4/2015, ON THE FILE OF

THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU,

DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 34 OF THE

ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996.


     THIS    M.F.A.   COMING   ON   FOR   ORDERS,   THIS   DAY,

ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:



                            JUDGMENT

None had appeared on behalf of the appellants.

Therefore, Court notice was issued to the appellants to their

address. However, the said Court notice has returned with

shara 'insufficient, appellants left the address' and the

appellants have not been served.

When the matter was taken up today, none has

appeared on behalf of the appellants. It appears that the

appellants are not interested in prosecuting the appeal.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed for want of

prosecution.

Sd/-

JUDGE