- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52453 WP No. 22940 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 22940 OF 2024 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN: 1. M/S. YOGHA CROP CARE PRIVATE LIMITED (REP BY DIRECTOR OF COMPANY) NO 31/6,MAYUR NILAYA 1ST B CROSS, CHIKKABOMMASANDRA YELAHANKA NEW TOWN BANGALORE - 560 065. 2. SRI. SREENIVAS T.N S/O NARASIAH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT NO. 31/6, MAYUR NILAYA 1ST B CROSS, CHIKKABOMMASANDRA YELAHANKA NEW TOWN BANGALORE - 560 065. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. GIRI KUMAR S.V, ADVOCATE (ABSENT)) AND: 1. THE CHIEF MANAGER CANARA BANK VIDYARANAYAPURA BRANCH NO. 194, NTI LAYOUT 1ST CROSS ROAD BLOCK VIDYRANYAPURA, BANGALORE - 560 097. Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52453 WP No. 22940 of 2024 2. DIVISIONALMANAGER (AUTHORIZED OFFICER) CANARA BANK REGIONAL OFFICE KRISHI BHAVAN, HUDSON CIRCLE NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIGNESH SHETTY, ADVOCATE) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE DEMAND NOTICE DTD. 06.05.2024 AT ANNX-E (PAGE 36) ISSUED BY R-1 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER The present writ petition is filed questioning the demand notice dated 16.05.2024 and seeking to quash the possession notice dated 23.07.2024 issued by the respondent No.2/Bank. 2. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, by order dated 23.08.2024, granted an interim order subject to condition that the petitioners shall deposit 25% of the outstanding amount within a period of four weeks from the said date. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52453 WP No. 22940 of 2024 3. When the matter came up on 11.11.2025, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Bank submitted that the interim order had been complied with by the petitioners. It was further submitted that the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners sought time to make the payment and to obtain instructions. Accordingly, the matter was directed to be listed on 09.12.2025. 4. On 09.12.2025, when the matter is listed before this Court, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioners and the matter is directed to be listed today under the caption ‘for dismissal'. Even today, though the matter is listed under the caption ‘for dismissal’, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioners. It appears that the petitioners are not interested in prosecuting the matter. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE SMC/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5