mm.-,5 wuwmnz W» awmmwumrmmm miwm mwwm
B%re. At the trim: of exhibitfig the Em "K1-knhii-'3"
in hm' theatre, the era rmpandent Ind
eazmtion of 100% t tax a::1'"
that the said fih is not a remake
Accordingly, she has
fi-am 5.19.2907 in of
exhibition of film. w[%%%m 29.12.2007,
aaemptinn of ' said %
was the WM
that it ' rx Tamil lamuage.
filled theGoverrmentd&tw
.120.12.2£§}it3"F.. bauad 1:: the appellant
a.pp$ant in W.P.m:.828'?2[2OD9
% ('I-E'I'j was diammd granmg Jim-cyror
% Q wnrk anther remedywith the prodxoer
or Thh order in mm chalw in this
.
5%
vas wwwwwatmmza
W; awWmmawr%!s”\I\p’| ulnar! %..:\J’|J”lAS_.l ‘I:-I!’ manmninnn rmum LUUM Ur” KAKNAEAKA Hitifl {;%UUR'”£ U?’ Kfiflfikiflflfl §*i!€5rH COURT OF §(fiifNATflKA HIGH (SOUR
4. The main contention of tho learn:-.d coutiaml
Ear tlrn appellant hefiore as is that, the
an Exhibitor of the film and based on
‘ gramad no the producer of
Govm-nmszant, she did mt 001199;
from the cuammm who “hm
ihezatre bevamen of
illatizan of Judge
has comnitm-1 to maoive
her dispufzg Aawording tn
him, if issued by thc: State
fin of the producm*, it Ya
Exhibitor. ‘firm-.1’cfam, In requeam the
order of the lea:-xwd Single’ Judge
% -and from 5.10.2037 to 20.12.2007. He
_ -‘1’fifl£f.fiéA’.4113[2O09 m the mattur Naxgumaiah –93-»
of Karnamlm, such mm has ham gimm by
amthw learned Smite: Judge of this Court: in respect cf
6/