Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 73798 (KAR)

SRI. MANJUNATHA B K v. M/S KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD.,

WP/40697/2019 · 2025-07-16

Vijaykumar A Patil

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26293 W.P. No.40697/2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.40697/2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. MANJUNATHA B.K. NO.13-1, ANJANEYA TEMPLE STREET J C NAGARA, NEAR T.V. TOWERS BENGALURU-560006. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. G.R. JAYANNA, ADV., [ABSENT]) AND: M/S. KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD., CORPORATE OFFICE AT 1ST FLOOR CEEBROS CENTRE 39, MONTIEH ROAD EGMORE, CHENNAI 600008 BRANCH OFFICE AT 26/27 RAHEJA TOWER, M.G. ROAD BENGALURU-560001 BY DEPUTY MANAGER & AUTHORISED REP. SRI. AKHIL PEDDENTI NAIDU. …RESPONDENT (R1 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 06.07.2019 PASSED BY THE 72nd ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-73) BENGALURU IN EX.P.NO.25266/18 AT ANNX-C & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: High Court of karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26293 W.P. No.40697/2019 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This Court on 11.07.2025, passed the following order: "No representation for the petitioner. This Court on 19.06.2020, stayed the further proceedings in Execution Petition No.25266/2018, subject to petitioner depositing ₹1,50,000/-. The order sheet indicates that the aforesaid order has not been complied with. Hence, the interim order granted in the aforesaid stands vacated. Registry is directed to communicate this order to the Trial Court . Re-list this matter in preliminary hearing in 'B' group on 16.07.2025." 2. Even today there is no representation for the petitioner. Records indicate that the petitioner has not deposited the amount as directed. It appears that the petitioner is also not interested in prosecuting the case. 3. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE ABK, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25