M/S Alpine Housing Development … vs The Principal Chief Engineer on 11 November, 2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED nus THE 3.1"' DAY or: NOVEMBER 23:9:

BE!"-'ORE :

THE HON'l3i.E MRJUSTICE MOHAN sHAN?AeeA'¢;'c)U':§:Ag  -.
WRIT PETITIQQ N9. 3§"2§V§'[ '2g 19 -1'  _ 
Q w.p.Ng§.§§2g1-3529'2g2g:'1g1",rg_A'MwR,.§.E'.I * * TV "

Bggwggn :

Corporation Ltd., a A __  

A company éncorporated ur1"d_e"I' V

The Indian Companies_Act"19'5'6:: _ _ V_ 
And having its Re-'g'éS'%;ered Dfféce'  _  
At No.302, A|p.irse'vAri"._h_';'. - _;   E
No.10, Langfobd R;o'a»d " 
Bangalore-5e6gO 'G2_7."'1~I;,._ --» '

Rep by ets'Dire'ctoVs T

S.A. Kabeer. E.   .   O T ..Petitioner

M/s. Alpine Housing Deve!o'{3mer.ft  :4 

(By Sn Sr:vai:sa,;Sr."Coi:hsei°'foE
M/s. Le>City --. '

Civil Judge, Bangalore in A';vAV§'i~£o.898;'2OE39'.= dismissing
I.A.No.7 that is oh Annexure~F.    

These Writ Petitions'  o_n;s.forjgpreiiminary hearing
this day, the Court made the-i.foE!owing   

Heard   §enior Counsel appearing
on behalf"sso't"'--t}Vie  and""Sri N.S.San3'ay Gowda,
learned counssei sappearingi..oii...idehaEf of the respondents.

2A,. _Thou”gh_:the’ipet’itio’ner has sought for various reliefs

,f’sin.,the-sitiifritypetiition, th’i’s'”Court does not deem fit to grant such

prayers’ After hearing both the learned advocates,

the opinion that the grievance of the

~fjg*4._spe.titione’i’_[is that the Court below is not deciding

pending before it at an earlier date. The

“‘l—..””f;urt_her grievance of the petitioner is that during the

V’