Case Note & Summary
The judgment pertains to two writ petitions filed by employees of Syndicate Bank challenging disciplinary orders. The petitioners, R A Anantha and M P J Nair, sought quashing of orders dated 14/12/2004 and 1/7/2004 respectively. However, on the date of hearing, neither the petitioners nor their advocates appeared. The court noted that the petitioners were not interested in prosecuting the petitions and accordingly dismissed both writ petitions for non-prosecution.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Dismissal for Non-Prosecution - Absence of Petitioner - The petitioners failed to appear or be represented, indicating lack of interest in prosecuting the petitions. The court dismissed both writ petitions for non-prosecution. (Paras 4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the writ petitions should be dismissed for non-prosecution due to absence of petitioners and their counsel.
Final Decision
Both writ petitions dismissed for non-prosecution.
Law Points
- Dismissal for non-prosecution
- lack of interest in prosecuting petition
Case Details
2018 LawText (KAR) (08) 4
Writ Petition No.10563 of 2005 (S-DE) and Writ Petition No.30035 of 2004 (S-DE)
Suneel S Narayan (absent), K Radhesh Prabhu, Tukaram S Pai
R A Anantha and M P J Nair
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Service dispute - challenge to disciplinary orders
Remedy Sought
Quashing of orders dated 14/12/2004 and 1/7/2004 passed by the bank and consequential benefits
Filing Reason
Petitioners challenged orders passed by Syndicate Bank
Issues
Whether the writ petitions should be dismissed for non-prosecution
Submissions/Arguments
None appeared for petitioners; no representation
Ratio Decidendi
If the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the petition and fails to appear, the petition is liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution.
Judgment Excerpts
None appears for the petitioner nor there is representation. It is apparent that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the petition. Hence, Writ Petition No.10563 of 2005 is dismissed.
The writ petitioner, party-in-person, is not present. Obviously he is not interested in prosecuting the petition. Hence, Writ Petition No.30035 of 2004 is dismissed.
Procedural History
Writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging orders of Syndicate Bank. On the date of hearing, petitioners and their advocates were absent, leading to dismissal.
Acts & Sections
- Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970:
- Constitution of India: Article 226
