Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 1300 (KAR)

ATLANTIC SPINNING & WEAVING MILLS LTD v. M/S VAR DEVELOPERS

RP/4/2017 · 2026-03-26

Anu Sivaraman, Tara Vitasta Ganju

Review Petitionbody2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17150-DB RP No. 4 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU REVIEW PETITION NO.4 OF 2017 BETWEEN: ATLANTIC SPINNING & WEAVING MILLS LTD. KRISHNA RAJENDRA SPINNING AND WEAVING MILLS LTD. BENGALURU-MYSURU HIGHWAY KESARE VILLAGE, MYSORE KARNATAKA 570023 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, A. S. YADAV …PETITIONER (BY SRI. Y. S. H. REDDY, ADVOCATE-ABSENT) AND: 1. M/S VAR DEVELOPERS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 5A, MUKTHI APARTMENTS, S.R.C.M ROAD, CHENNAI TAMIL NADU STATE-600016 2. P.J. RAGHAVENDRA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, Digitally signed by RAKSHA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17150-DB RP No. 4 of 2017 ADVOCATE, RESIDING AT NO.03, BLOCK NO.34, MADHUVANA II STAGE, SRIRAMAPURA LAYOUT, MYSURU KARNATAKA-570023 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BRIJESH KALAPPA, ADV. FOR R1; V.O.D. 16.07.2018 NOTICE TO R2 D/W) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 114 R/W ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENT DATED 15.07.2016 PASSED IN MFA NO. 4975/2015(AA), ON THE FILE OF THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17150-DB RP No. 4 of 2017 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN) There is no representation for the review petitioner today. We notice that there have been repeated postings of the matter, however, there has been no appearance for the review petitioner or adjournments have been sought for. 2. Today also, when the matter is called, there is no representation for the review petitioner. It appears that the review petitioner is not interested to prosecute the petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the review is filed against the judgment of the year 2016. 4. In the above view of the matter, review petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/- (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE RAK,List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9