Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 88993 (KAR)

THE HEAD MASTER v. AJAY RAJENDIRAN

MFA/543/2023 · 2025-09-11

Lalitha Kanneganti

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36341 MFA No. 543 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.543 OF 2023 (MV-I) BETWEEN: THE HEAD MASTER, CHRIST GLOBAL RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL, NEAR HALEHALLI, BEHIND GARDEN CITY COLLEGE K. R. PURAM, BENGALURU – 560 036 REPRESENTED BY THE HEAD MASTER viz., MR. FRANCIS …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SRIDHAR D S., ADVOCATE – ABSENT) AND: AJAY RAJENDIRAN, S/O SRI. RAJENDIRAN S, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.21, SRI. LAKSHMI NIVAS, 5TH CROSS, BEHIND J. B. FLOORINGS, JAI BHUVANESHWARI TEMPLE, K. R. PURAM, BENGALURU – 560 036 …RESPONDENT THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE AWARD PASSED BY THE XVII ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND MEMBER, M.A.C.T., MAYO HALL UNIT, AT BENGALURU (SCCH-21) IN M.V.C. NO.2719/2021, DATED 21.12.2022, IN DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION AS AGAINST THE APPELLANT AND TO ALLOW THE APPEAL, IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR DISMISSAL THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36341 MFA No. 543 of 2023 ORAL JUDGMENT When this matter came up before the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 05.06.2025, there was no representation on behalf of the appellant. Again on 22.07.2025, the Court had observed that despite the order, the appellant had failed to furnish the requisites. Therefore, the stay granted by this Court was vacated. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had observed that in case requisites are not furnished within the time granted, office to list the matter today under the caption 'for dismissal'. 2. Today also, there is no representation on behalf of the appellant. The Office note shows that the needful is not done. Hence, it appears that the appellant is not interested to pursue the matter. 3. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for non- prosecution. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE MEG List No.: 2 Sl No.: 3