M/S. NHDPL SOUTH PRIVATE LIMITED v. UNION BANK OF INDIA
WP/23993/2021 · 2025-04-29
Suraj Govindaraj
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 29303 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 29303 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
- 1 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18031 WP No. 23993 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 23993 OF 2021 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
M/S. NHDPL SOUTH PRIVATE LIMITED, (FORMERLY KNOWN AS NHDPL PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., AND PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS NITESH HOUSING DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED) HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.110, LEVEL 1, ANDREWS BUILDING, M.G. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001, ALSO HAVING OFFICE AT NO. 7, 7TH FLOOR, NITESH TIMES SQUARE, M.G. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY.
K.B. SWAMY. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VAMSHI KRISHNA C, ADVOCATE (ABSENT)) AND:
1.
UNION BANK OF INDIA VILE PARLE (W) BRANCH, SHIV SHAKTI, 11 VITHAL NAGAR, COOP, HOUSING SOCIETY, 10TH ROAD, J.V.P.D. SCHEME, VILE PARLE (W) MUMBAI - 400 049, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.
2.
THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA NEW CENTRAL OFFICE BUILDING, SHAHID BHAGAT SINGH ROAD, FORT, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA - 400 001.
Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
- 2 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18031 WP No. 23993 of 2021
3.
THE BANKING OMBUDSMAN MUMBAI C/O. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, 4TH FLOOR, RBI BYCULLA OFFICE BUILDING, OPP MUMBAI CENTRAL RAILWAY STATION, BYCULLA, MUMBAI - 400 008. …RESPONDENTS
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO a) ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS AGAINST THE 1ST RESPONDENT DIRECTING IT TO INVOKE THE BANK GUARANTEES DATED 20.7.2016 AND NO. DATED 20.07.2016 AND TO TRANSFER THE PROCEEDS TO THE PETITIONER AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ ORAL ORDER
1. Despite the order dated 08.01.2024, neither the office objections are complied with nor is there any appearance on part of the petitioner.
2. It appears that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the above petition and hence, the petition is dismissed for non-prosecution.
SD/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE DH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21 CT: BHK