'--....AND: % - » .['_jN,G...E.F' Limited . . _ Gv5}VE?.'II1HlfilV'§'lt of Karnataka Company, V 'v _ V' * . _v ' Ha§r§11g _itS:Registcmd Offiec, _VAt_Byy:appanaha1]j, Bangaiore - 560 038. Respondent
‘(E4y Sri.V.N. Sathyanarayana, Adv. )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT Bmcgrgggg
DATED THIS THE 291*” DAY OF MAY _
BEFORE % A X n
THE HoN*BL.r; MR.JUs’r1 §i§: %N.1 % ‘A {L
R.F.A.N0;j99/
BETWEEE :
1. Sri. R.s.she::¢§i:[Tk%% X
S/0 Lt. Cal’; iR¢fd):;_: %
Major, A
2. Lt. Col. R.H;’Sh.r:_Jr:0y'{Rétgl). f
S/0 Si’i_.. R._G. Sl’.sriIz0jr,. ‘
Major, . ,_ ‘
(Both arcLRcsidi11g at 7’/826,
Ausfirx Townmats, S’.’nge~I,
Appellants
(By: 3. Adv.)
This RFA is filed under section 96 CFC praying to
set aside the judgment and decree dated 30.03. 1999
A = 4:1) ‘We!fare fund subscription Rs. 12.00
‘ {:1} Interest at the rats of 24%
to pay the amount claimed in the legal
28.2.1990.
3. The plainl:’fi’s claimed ofI§:3:.27,93
as liquidated damages as 1 «V
(3) Towards
Rs.2,8.32.4_3 l:}ei13g_ 2u %
.1987 ‘
£116 1im1i<iat::d of %
Rs.12;3§}Q/- +-Rs.650/ – f.
”
— I . Rs.10,137.57
(b) ‘i’9wmfls-Smumths notice
{af(a1’Aa:~_}.dVj*.isti11g 15 days
‘ ” at credit
” -.against 3’1m::nt31s notice
pezfibd) Rs. 10,297.00
. V&«~’]_ A conveyance
‘ Vztihtgbursemcnt. Rs. 1,531.00
Per annum on Rs.21,977.57
from 20.4.89 to 31.5.90. Rs. 5,754.18
(6) Notice chargs Rs. 200.00
Rs.27,93l.75
es
pay liquidated dame. The plaintiff .,
of legal notice to which defendanie
denying their liability to pay fifitzifiawd L,
plaintiff.
4.
On the Q1″ ébrifiéc trial court
framed _
(1)
(9?)
that defendant
of service agreewt?
._ proves that defendant
12.9. 1 anaezejamy liable for Rs.27,931.75 as
em
rat/4::’V'(4)V”v. e
I5»
_ _ 1iq;1idai;ed’*vdérinages contained in para-ll of
_____
Whether the defendant no. 1 pmves that
of service oppressive and unfair?
S’f’:v_?’2:i;ctI1er the suit is not maintainable?
What decree or order?
On behalf of plaintifi’, Moleed Habibulla,
V[ ” Manager of NGEF was examined as P.W. 1 and
‘ documents filed for plaintiff were marked as Exhibits
maintainable and trial court ought not to’ K
the suit.
For theae reasons I
_ QRfiERv %
The appeal is and dccmc
dated 30.3. on the file of
xxx Addl? are set aside.
The
af’.’t11é. and also havmg’ regand to the
faifistixat km: dismissed on the ground a’
the parties are direct’ ed to bear their
costs. ‘T
sd/-5%
Iudgé
Sub]