Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 28574 (KAR)

SRINIVAS S DEVATHI v. UNION OF INDIA

WA/983/2024 · 2025-04-22

K S Mudagal, M G S Kamal

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:16582-DB WA No.983/2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT APPEAL NO.983/2024 (IPR) BETWEEN: SRINIVAS S DEVATHI AGED 47 YEARS S/O LATE D. SATYANARAYANA RESIDING AT NO.63, 11TH 'B' CROSS 3RD MAIN, PRASHANTHNAGAR BANGALORE - 560 079 INDIA, MOBILE - 9663932293 E-mail ID - ProjectEarthling@SrinivasDevathi.com …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SRINIVAS S. DEVATHI (PARTY-IN-PERSON)) AND: UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS LEGAL AND TREATIES DIVISION ROOM NO.901, AKBAR BHAVAN CHANAKYAPURI, NEW DELHI - 110 021 PH: 91-11-24674143. REPRESENTED BY MRS.UMA SEKHAR ADDITIONAL SECRETARY ALSO REPRESENTING EXTERNAL AFFAIRS MINISTER MR. S. JAISHANKAR …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.SHIVAPRASAD SHANTANAGOUDAR, LGC) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURTS ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 14-06-2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.NO.13823/2023 (IPR) AND ETC., THIS WRIT APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by ROOPA R U Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:16582-DB WA No.983/2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL) Appellant-party in person is present and submits that he is not ready to engage the services of learned counsel. 2. The party in person committee by report dated 23.02.2025 has certified that the appellant is incapable in conducting the matter in person. Even this Court found that the appellant without required competence to argue the matter simply consuming the time of the Court in arguments consuming the valuable Court’s time which could be devoted for deciding other matters. 3. Despite the Court granting him the opportunity to engage Counsel, the appellant-party in person is recalcitrant and not agreeable to avail the opportunity. The office objections are not complied. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (K.S.MUDAGAL) JUDGE Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE RL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9