High Court Karnataka High Court

M/S Ashoka Apartments (P) Ltd vs The Appropriate Authority on 5 August, 2010

Karnataka High Court
M/S Ashoka Apartments (P) Ltd vs The Appropriate Authority on 5 August, 2010
Author: N.K.Patil And A.S.Bopanna
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BAN

DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OP AUGUST 20.T1v~oj

PRESENT

THE HONBLE MRJUSTIOEAN.   f  

AND _ 1 i _  

THE HONBLE MR.JUS'.-FKICEAPT$:BOPA§§1gI'A1:  
WRIT APPEAL NO. i%3SS,'2Qo4' 
BETWEEN:      

M/S ASHOKA APARTMENTS {P}  " 2,
3RD FLOOR, CENTENARY EU~1LD1Nc;.S - ~
28, MAHA1'MA?_GA:x1ADH1 ROM)", "    
EANOALOR;;«-;'550-D01,'    .
REP BY ITS DIRECTOR' _  A
MR. ARJU-N M'ME1'\E;3A,  
AGED ABOUT62. _ --
S /O. LATE 'MADAIlDASP.MEN"DA '

* V' " %    ...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. VANI H, ADV)" 

  1' .  "  AUTIE-iORI'£'Y

" -._INCO_M_E DEPARTMENT
 "K}33.ND}?J"YA SADAN"
 4TH FLOOR, 'A' WING, 17TH MAIN,
2-NP BLOCK, KORAMANGALA.
:  BANGALORE -- 560 034

' '  V A RAM
337. UPPER P E ORCHARDS
BANGALORE ~ 080

'''''"._'___"_.,....o-'

.. A:~..'>', ~



3 MRS RAMA G JADHAV
W/O DR GOPINATH RAO JADHAV
NO5739, DEEP FOREST ROAD.
RICHMOND, VIRGENIA 23237,
U.S.A. REP. BY GPA HOLDER
CAPTAIN V.K. KADAM, 1,  0
DY. MANAGER, (SECURITY   ._  .; , V A .
& VIOILENCE} AEROSPACE DIVISION  A
HIDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LTD, 
POST BOX NO. 7502, ' '  *-
BANGALORE -- 560 075  "  .    
  RESRONDENTS
(BY SR1 M V SESHACHALA, ADV. . FOR. R1
SR1 V S HEGDE & M/S KESVY8: COMPANY, ADVS FOR R2]
SR1 T KRISHNA, ADV. FOR' R3 A _ 'V  .  _ 
SR1 NACANANDj&._M/S' JUST LAw'»,ASsOC:ATES,
ADVS FOR        A 

 'APPEAL REED "U,/_S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH ,COURTfAcT'§,PRA*K1'NG TOSET ASIDE THE ORDER
PASSED 1R" THE"v-W'RI'r»_,PE'P1T1ON NO.3011/1996 DATED
19/01/2004. *"~ *.'»,.

.=This  C'Offiing On for Hearing this day,

 -  N.}£S'.i,P§'I'IL .J.; "de1_1'yeVred the following ;

JUDGMENT

the matter had come up for hearing on

ZZ6._.O7.’2C.)10, Smt. H. Vani, iearned Counsel for the

“Appellant submitted that appellant»->COmpany is Closed

V’ She does not have any instructions. Hence, she

I//_»__,…

sought time to ascertain as to whether the
appellant/company was in existence and if so,

instructions and make her submissions.

2. When the matter is taken up today.” K V’

course of submission, learned Cc;unself,oi*_pth,’e– appellant

submitted that in spite of making la.l_1l”iier bevst.’effort’sl.tc

trace out the whereabouts appe1lai1Vt~c’o:rnpany,
she could not secure the appellant.

Therefore, she is filing. ;for”retirement dated
05-08-$3010. per’missi”o”nw–‘to withdraw power for

the appellant.’ it

_;3″. ..rV_Vnernov’of.retirement filed by the learned

the appellant is placed on record. For the

reas.ons”s’ta.te<i"iri the memo, she is permitted to retire

. frorrrthelpcase at her risk.

4. This matter was posted before this Court on

several occasions from 08.04.2004. At the

the learned Counsel for the appellant, the

adjourned on 08.07.2010 anal’l2e;07.i2010.f:c;Viptaiaeti.

instructions. It appears that is

interested in prosecuting the””i«ease nxor has any
diligence to give instrIg1et_ion_sd.”£:I’1p’ “mpatter.V°Tal<ing all
these facts into considered
View that thisfisl appeal for non-

prosecutiori, –:i_ it ' .

For the f0:ceg4oingvl._reas’or1s, the instant appeal is
dismissedforlnori-pr os~ect2ti0n. Ordered accordingly.

…..

Eudgg

saf
iadgg

d it /bms