- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44592-DB RFA No. 430 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 430 OF 2012 (RES) BETWEEN: M/S HDO TECHNOLOGIES LTD, A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, AND HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT "DORR OLIVER HOUSE", CHAKALA, ANDHERI (EAST), MUMBAI- 400 099, AND HAVING ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT GGR TOWERS, TECH MAHINDRA, BUILDING, NO.18/26, AMBALIPURAM, BELLANDUR GATE, SARJAPURA ROAD, BANGALORE-562 103, REP. BY ITS GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, MRS.J.P.PHILOMENA. …APPELLANT [BY SRI.B.N.JAYADEVA, ADVOCATE (ABSENT) ] AND: M/S S.J.R.INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD, A COMPANY INCORPORATED Digitally signed by K G RENUKAMBA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44592-DB RFA No. 430 of 2012 UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, AND HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO. 1, SJR PRIMUS, 7TH AND 8TH FLOOR, KORAMANGALA INDUSTRIAL LAYOUT, 7TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-560 095 REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR, MR.J.VIJAYA REDDY. …RESPONDENT [(BY SRI. AJAY SHANKAR RAO, ADVOCATE ] THIS RFA IS FILED U/S 96 R/W ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 03.12.2011 PASSED IN O.S.NO.4211/2010 ON THE FILE OF XIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY, ALLOWING IA NO.2 FILED U/S 8 OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT THEREBY REJECTING THE SUIT AS IT IS HIT BY SECTION 8 OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI) Despite the matter is called out in the 2nd round, no one appears for the appellant- M/s.HDO Technologies Ltd. 2. Learned counsel for the respondent is present. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44592-DB RFA No. 430 of 2012 3. When the matter was last listed on 18.12.2024, the following order was passed:- “Sri. Nagaraj Naik, learned counsel for the appellant submits that retirement notice sent to the appellant has returned with postal shara “Addressee No Found”. Further it is submitted that he would take fresh steps for service of retirement notice to appellant. Hence, he prays for some time.” 4. It appears the appellant-Company, is not interested to press this appeal. 5. The appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. Sd/- (JAYANT BANERJI) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE KGR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18