Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 7394 (KAR)

MR. T SUNILKUMAR v. M/S CFM ASSET RECONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED

WP/10459/2024 · 2026-02-24

Ashok S Kinagi

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:11575 WP No. 10459 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI WRIT PETITION NO. 10459 OF 2024 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN: MR. T SUNILKUMAR S/O C THIMMEGOWDA, AGE 38 YEARS, NO.1, NEAR POLICE CHOWKI, CHOWDESHWARINAGAR, LAGGERE, BENGALURU - 560058. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRAMOD M., ADVOCATE (ABSENT) ) AND: M/S CFM ASSET RECONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED, CORPORATE OFFICE, INCORPORATED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 2013 REP BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER, 1ST FLOOR, WAKEFIELD HOUSE, Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:11575 WP No. 10459 of 2024 SPOT ROAD, BELLARD ESTATE, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA - 400038. …RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS FROM THE HONBLE DRT-1 BENGALURU VIDE ORDER DATED 29.2.24 I.E,. ANNEXURE-B AND SET ASIDE THE SAID ORDER DATED 29.2.23 PASSED IN I.A.NO. 2048/2023 AND SA.NO. 473/2023, ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE DRT-1, BENGALURU AND ALSO QUASHED THE POSSESSION NOTICE DATED 13.6.23 I.E. ANNEXURE-A WHICH ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT, AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: *** - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:11575 WP No. 10459 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL ORDER The case called twice. None appears for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner, even on the last date of hearing, none appears. It was made clear that, if the petitioner fails to appear on the next date of hearing, an appropriate order will be passed, including dismissal of the writ petition for non-prosecution. 3. Today, the case called twice. None appears for the petitioner. The writ petition is of the year 2024. It seems that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the writ petition. In view of the peremptory order, I do not find any grounds to grant further adjournment. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed for non- prosecution. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE SSB