LALBAHADURSAHEB, SINCE DECEASED, BY HIS LEGAL HEIR v. THE MANAGEMENT OF MYSORE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD,
WP/66198/2010 · 2025-03-12
Jyoti Mulimani
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 8272 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 8272 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
- 1 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4649 WP No. 66198 of 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 66198 OF 2010 (L-TER) BETWEEN:
1A.
SRI. LALBAHADURSAHEB, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS,
SMT. RAJAABI W/O. LATE LALBAHADURSAHEB, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
1B. SMT. MUMTAZ D/O. LATE LALBAHADURSAHEB, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
1C. SMT. AISHA D/O. LATE LALBAHADURSAHEB, AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
1D. CHANDBASHA S/O. LATE LALBAHADURSAHEB, AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC:
1E. KUMAR MOULALI AOULALI ABU KALAM LATE LALBAHADURSAHEB, AGE: 18 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
1F. KUMARI BIBIFATIMA D/O. LATE LALBAHADURSAHEB, AGE: 12 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, BEING MINOR REPRESENTED BY PETITIONER NO.1A.
ALL ARE RESIDING AT: KADRA, TQ: KARWAR, DIST: UK.
… PETITIONERS (BY SRI. RAVI S. HEGDE., ADVOCATE [ABSENT])
Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
- 2 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4649 WP No. 66198 of 2010
AND:
THE MANAGEMENT OF MYSORE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD., REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, H.O. AT HOUSE NO.48, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU.
… RESPONDENT (BY SRI.Z.N.HANSI., ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.
THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
When the case is called, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioners, either personally or through video conferencing. As could be seen from the Writ papers, the petition is filed in 2010. Now we are in the month of March, 2025. It is pending from ten years. As already noted above, when the matter is called, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioners, either personally or through video conferencing. It appears that the petitioners are not interested in prosecuting the petition. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed for non- prosecution. Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE RH LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 23