SHRI MALLIKARJUN S/O VEERAPPA BALLARY vs. THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court observed that the petitioner was not interested in prosecuting the petition due to repeated non-compliance. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.
What were the facts?
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to set aside an order passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge. The case was listed multiple times, and the petitioner failed to comply with office objections and pay costs. This was the fifth instance of non-compliance.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was the petitioner's persistent failure to comply with procedural requirements and court orders, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: Shri Mallikarjun
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH ON THE 29TH DAY OF APRIL, 2015 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH Writ Petition No. 207324/2014 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: Shri Mallikarjun S/o Veerappa Ballary, Aged about: 53 years, Occ: Business, R/o Station Road, Shikarkhana Cross, Bijapur, District: Bijapur. ... Petitioner (By Sri Gopalkrishna B. Yadav, Advocate -Absent) AND: 1. The Union of India Represented by its The Secretary, Central Government of India, New Delhi. 2. The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Bijapur Range, Opp: Civil Hospital, Belgum.
2 3. The Income Tax Officer Bijapur. ... Respondents (By Sri Ameet Kumar Deshpande, Advocate/Caveator for R2 & R3) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of certiorari to set aside the order dated 10.10.2014 passe on I.A.No.1 (Annexure-‘G’) by Hon’ble Prl. Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Bijapur in M.A.No.10/2014 by restoring order on I.A.No.1 passed by Hon’ble III Additional Civil Judge Jr.Dn in O.S.No.678/2010 and grant such other or further relief or reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case. This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court made the following: ORDER None appears for the petitioner nor is any representation made on his behalf. On 22.4.2015 two days time was granted to comply with the office objections on payment of cost of Rs.1,000/- Even then the needful has not been done. The costs have not been paid.
3 2. Non compliance of office objections for the 5th time. It is apparent that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the petition. Consequently, the petition is dismissed for non prosecution. Sd/- JUDGE *MK
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Nanda Contruction PVT. LTD., Angul vs. Additional Commissioner, GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, SundergarhOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Utkal Suppliers,Ganjam vs. Assistant Commissioner Of CT And GST, Ganjam-I Circle,GanjamOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of Hte Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026