Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 88233 (KAR)

M/S. HINDUSTAN SOAP INDUSTRIES v. M/S. STRATEGIC MARKETING AND RESEARCH TEAM

CRL.RP/844/2022 · 2025-11-17

Ravi V Hosmani

Criminal Appealbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47056 CRL.RP No. 844 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 844 OF 2022 BETWEEN: 1. M/S. HINDUSTAN SOAP INDUSTRIES NO.45/2, INDUSTRIAL LAYOUT, BANNIMANTAPA, MYSORE-570 015, ALSO AT HINDUSTAN SOAP INDUSTRIES, NO.149-F, BELAGOLA INDUSTRIAL AREA, METAGALLI, MYSORE-570 016, REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR/ AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR. SIDDIQ AHMED. 2. MR. SIDDIQ AHMED PROPRIETOR/AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY HINDUSTAN SOAP INDUSTRIES, NO.45/2, INDUSTRIAL A LAYOUT, BANNIMANTAPA, MYSORE-570 015, ALSO AT MR. SIDDIQ AHMED NO.149-F, BELAGOLA INDUSTRIAL AREA, METAGALLI, MYSORE-570 016, ALSO AT NO.567, 7TH CROSS, Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47056 CRL.RP No. 844 of 2022 RAJIVNAGAR, 2ND STAGE, MYSORE-570 015. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI KISHOR KUMAR A S., ADV.FOR P1 - ABSENT; SRI SHARON JENIFER, ADV.FOR P2 - ABSENT) AND: M/S.STRATEGIC MARKETING AND RESEARCH TEAM A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO. 253, 5TH BLOCK, 67TH CROSS, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 010, REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR/ AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR. SIDDIQ AHAMED. …RESPONDENT THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE ORDER DATED 09.03.2022 PASSED BY HONBLE COURT OF THE LX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU ( CCH-61) IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2206/2019 AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47056 CRL.RP No. 844 of 2022 ORAL ORDER Though matter was passed over and called again, there is no representation for petitioners. 2. It is seen that on 16.10.2025, there was no representation and on 30.10.2025, learned counsel for petitioners undertook to go on with matter today. This would indicate that petitioner is not pursuing revision petition diligently. Hence, revision petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE AV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41