Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 13225 (KAR)

INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK v. UNION OF INDIA

WP/749/2021 · 2025-01-09

Jyoti Mulimani

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:820 WP No. 749 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 749 OF 2021 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, ASSET RECOVERY MANAGEMENT BRANCH, NO. 10/1, 3RD FLOOR, LAKSHMINARAYANA COMPLEX, PALACE ROAD, VASANTHANAGARA, BENGALURU-560 052. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S.N.KESHAVA BHAT., ADVOCATE [ABSENT]) AND: 1. UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT, SHRAM SHAKTHI BHAVAN, RAFI MARG, NEW DELHI-110 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. EMPLOYEE'S PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, (MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT, GOVT. OF INDIA), REGIONAL OFFICE, K.R.PURAM, NO.F-28, NSU BLOCK, ITI CAMPUS (BANGALORE PLANT), DOORVANINAGARA, BENGALURU-560 016. REPRESENTED BY IS ASST. PF COMISSIONER. 3. BHUWALKA STEEL INDUSTRIES LIMITED, (JEWELLERY DIVISION), (CIN: L27209KA1981PLC004343) 10TH MILE, OLD MADRAS ROAD, Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:820 WP No. 749 of 2021 BANDAPURA VILLAGE, BENGALURU-560 049. REPRESENTED BY MR.SHIVADUT BANNANJE, RESOLUTION PROFESSIONAL APPOINTED BY NCLT, VIDE CASE NO.C.P.(IB) NO.228/BB/2018, HAVING OFFICE AT: S-709, SOUTH BLOCK, MANIPAL CENTRE, DICKENSON ROAD, BENGALURU-560 042. 4. MR.SHIVADUTT BANNANJE RESOLUTION PROFESSIONAL FOR BHUWALKA STEEL INDUSTRIES LIMITED, S-709, SOUTH BLOCK, MANIPAL CENTRE, DICKENSON ROAD, BENGALURU-560 042. …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER When the case is called, the petitioner is not represented. When the case is listed and called out, the advocate must be present. The absence may affect the case. As could be seen from the daily order sheet, the petition was listed on 08.01.2025, on that day, when the matter is called, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner, either personally or through video conferencing. Hence, for - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:820 WP No. 749 of 2021 appearance of counsel for the petitioner it was ordered to be listed on 09.01.2025. The petition is listed today for appearance of counsel of the petitioner. As already noted above, when the case is called, the petitioner is not represented. It appears that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the petition. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12