Karnataka High Court
RP/595/2025 of M/S. FINOLEX CABLES LIMITED Vs STATE OF KARNATAKA on 17 July 2026
CNR: KAHC010846062025 NC: 2026:KHC:36763-DB RP No. 595 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA REVIEW PETITION NO. 595 OF 2025 BETWEEN: M/S. FINOLEX
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
REVIEW PETITION NO. 595 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
M/S. FINOLEX CABLES LIMITED
NO.104, FIRST FLOOR,
RAHEJA CHAMBERS,
NO.12, MUSEUM ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001,
REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER
MR. T.R. MOHAN.
…PETITIONER
(BY SMT. VEENA J. KAMATH, ADVOCATE (PH))
AND:
1.
STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED THROUGH
THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF
COMMERCIAL TAXES (APPEALS-1),
BMTC BUILDING,
SHANTHI NAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 027.
2.
THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER
(VIGILANCE-23)
SALES TAX CHECK POST,
BRCP (IN AND OUT),
Digitally
signed by
LAKSHMI T
Location:
High Court
of Karnataka
HC-KAR
N.H.07, BAGEPALLI,
CHIKKABALLAPUR-561 207.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ADITYA VIKRAM BHAT, AGA (PH)
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 114
R/W ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC 1908, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE
REVIEW PETITION SEEKING REVIEW OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT DATED 24.02.2025 OF THIS HON’BLE COURT IN
STRP NO.12/2022 AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND DISMISS THE
REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ)
Heard on I.A.No.1/2026 seeking condonation of delay of 268 days in preferring the review petition. Perused the contents of the affidavit accompanying the application.
2. It is stated that the petitioner was unaware about the proceedings before this Court in STRP No.12/2022. The respondents had sought time before this Court, on 26.06.2023, to convey the pendency of the
HC-KAR
petition through the jurisdictional officer, but no such communication was received by the petitioner. Subsequently, upon receipt of the endorsement dated 29.05.2025 and the Assessing Authority intimating about the order dated 24.02.2025, petitioner came to know of passing of the order and immediately took steps to file the review petition. It is therefore, submitted that the delay is not intentional but for bonafide reasons. It is also submitted that the petitioner has a good case on merits.
3. Learned AGA has opposed the application contending that this Court has issued notice to the respondent in STRP on 22.03.2022 and the notice was also served. However, there was no representation. Hence, this Court has passed the order on merits. He therefore, sought to reject the application seeking condonation of delay.
4. From the material on record, we have found that the notice was issued to the respondents by this
HC-KAR
Court, in SRTP, on 22.03.2022 for the appearance of the respondent within 10 days. As per the acknowledgment, notice was served on 26.07.2022, which is beyond the prescribed period mentioned in the notice. According to the petitioner on 26.06.2023, time was sought before this Court to convey the pendency of the STRP, through the jurisdictional officer, but no such communication was received. To show that the pendency of the STRP was later communicated to the review petitioner, there is no material forthcoming. The learned counsel for review petitioner submits that even the notice was not duly served upon the respondent in STRP.
5. Be that as it may, this Court in revision petition, relying on subsequent notifications dated 19.01.2011 followed by another notification dated 05.03.2014 and also relying on a decision of this Court in Power Max v. State of Karnataka, 2011 SCC online KAR 460, has allowed the petition. The learned counsel for petitioner has disputed the notifications. In that view of the matter, we
HC-KAR
deem it appropriate to give an opportunity to the review petitioner to contest the revision petition on merits. Hence, the delay in preferring the review petition is condoned. I.A.No.1/2026 is allowed. The order dated 24.02.2025 passed in STRP No.12/2022 is set aside. STRP is restored to the file. Review petition is allowed. Registry shall list STRP No.12/2022 before the Bench having roster.
Sd/- (MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE
Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE
HB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7