M/S RAGHU INFRA PVT LTD v. M/S. HINDUSTAN STEEL CONSTRUCTION LTD
WP/41209/2015 · 2025-10-14
E S Indiresh
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 51494 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 51494 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
- 1 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40691 WP NO.41209 OF 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.41209 OF 2015 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
M/S RAGHU INFRA PVT. LTD.
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT:NO.24, 1ST CROSS, 29TH MAIN, 1ST STAGE, B.T.M. LAYOUT, BENGALAURU - 560 068.
REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR, MR. RAGHU KIRAN. &PETITIONER (BY SRI. SIDDHARTHA H.M., ADVOCATE) AND:
1.
M/S. HINDUSTAN STEEL CONSTRUCTION LTD.
A GOVERNMENT OF INDIA UNDERTAKING, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT: P-34A, GARIAHAT ROAD (SOUTH), KOLKATA, WEST BENGAL - 700 031.
REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER.
ALSO HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT: NO.5/1, COMMISSARIAT ROAD, HASTINGS, KOLKATA, WEST BENGAL - 700 022.
REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER.
2.
BANK OF INDIA BANGALORE MID CORPORATE BRANCH, NO.11, K.G. ROAD, BOI BUILDING, 1ST FLOOR, BENGALURU - 560 009.
REP. BY ITS MANAGER. &RESPONDENTS
Digitally signed by ARUNKUMAR M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40691 WP NO.41209 OF 2015
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE LETTER DATED 14TH SEPTEMBER, 2015 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 VIDE ANNEXURE-V, TERMINATING THE WORK UNDER LOI BEARING NO.2012/915 DATED 30TH JANUARY, 2012 AND LOI BEARING NO.2013/395 DATED 12TH MARCH, 2013 AS NULL AND VOID AND NOT BINDING ON THE PETITIONER; AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER
On perusal of the order sheet would indicate that the petitioner has not complied with the office objections raised by the office at the stage of scrutiny.
2. This petition is of the year-2015. Despite having been granted sufficient time, learned counsel for the petitioner failed to comply with the office objections for more than ten years. This non-compliance by the petitioner would indicate that the petitioner has no genuine intent to diligently pursue the matter.
3. Accordingly, writ petition stands dismissed for non- compliance of office objections. SD/- (E.S. INDIRESH) JUDGE
ARK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1