Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 23325 (KAR)

STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD v. SRI.SHARANAPPA HOSMANI

WP/24006/2014 · 2025-03-25

B M Shyam Prasad

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - NC: 2024:KHC:22354 WP No. 24006 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 24006 OF 2014 (L-RES) BETWEEN: 1. STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD A BODY CORPORATE CONSTITUTED UNDER STATE BANK OF INDIA (SUBSIDIARY BANKS) ACT, 1955, HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE, AT HYDERABAD AND A REGIONAL OFFICE, AT GULBARGA-585 101. REPRESENTED BY ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER. 2. STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD A BODY CORPORATE CONSTITUTED UNDER STATE BANK OF INDIA (SUBSIDIARY BANKS) ACT, 1955, HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE, HO-GUM FOUNDRY, HYDERABAD-500 177. REPRESENTED BY GENERAL MANAGER. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. S.K.M.SHETTY., ADVOCATE [ABSENT]) AND: SRI. SHARANAPPA HOSMANI S/O SRI.SAIBANNA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/O OPP. CHIRANJEEVI METHODIST SCHOOL, HYDERABAD ROAD, YADGIRI-585 201. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. S.NAGARAJ., ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:22354 WP No. 24006 of 2014 THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR DISMISSAL, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER When the matter is called, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioners, either personally or through video conferencing. As could be seen from the daily order sheet, the petition was listed on 13.06.2024, on that day, though matter called twice, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner, either personally or through video conferencing. Hence, the petition was ordered to be listed under the caption 'for dismissal' on 21.06.2024. The petition is listed today. As already noted above, when the matter is called, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioners, either personally or through video conferencing. It appears that the petitioners are not interested in prosecuting the petition. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed for non- prosecution. Sd/- JUDGE TKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45