High Court Karnataka High Court

C S Mani vs Chief Executive Officer on 6 July, 2009

Karnataka High Court
C S Mani vs Chief Executive Officer on 6 July, 2009
Author: Anand Byrareddy
 

;§s=;=%;M&?fimfifi% §"§§fi%§""§ ilfififlfifiw' Q? %?'??a§%';M&"'TE%W% Wflfl $4

 

mm mwwmé mm' mmaézwsmmwm WWW %;w.%?iW W" mmM%¥mm %»mm mmm" W mmmmm Wfifiw axmm' fifi

IN THE? HIGH' {HURT GE' KRENATAKK AT Eakfifilufififii

DATED THIS THE 51:?! [KEY 93' JULY 2339 

EEFORE

THE Horvanaz xmausrrca: ANAKE 323,23}.-;1'r;:::%gi-L:--..  .

fl'.9.l'o. 11300/2907 fj A  '-

C.s.Mani, 45 yams    "
Mfanzasy L.E.G.Bott1ing £_i'as,nt, '
rxmz, 12°' Main Road,  %   
K.s.a.gra£:ara, aang31:>3:a,V------- _ " .'.-.:¥B:t1:uoma

AID :

q.-----.-------an---

1.

Chie.f $.ucutive’–0f.?i;:erv V
and mamcutiva n£amba5rVdef’–Vth¢’–._ja_”*
Kaxuataka Industrialilggma _ ~
nava1cpnant~’E.{$ax;1;;V
:~m.:w3, 2*? E’l_a.arW: 1 ;
Rash1:.1’csttaana’;A_ 9:33:11-:&;att1″ fiuiltiinfi _.
N.’r.Raad, Bamgalcxra.-.. ‘- *

2.Aasistar.**.: sacrhtary ”

KZEADB, :»»zzé;:b.1s;iiJ:ia1 Gr*e«.¢;;;_’;:antre
1-:iA.V_}i;”é*a.é1..;1:’;’L*-§?.:aa”d’;A.,. ‘H.;asa:r»5?3 2111

3 . 3}’ 5 .3. .3; i;-§r9ar5,;s5¢f.a
Partnex3;.V% H..h.«. Hamalaflxz

‘» ‘–~£:af£aa masztaxrs 3″‘ czross
Ravi ndmnngag, Eiasaan.

‘ £3:-: e§i.!:;:. 5&3;-‘:1. {#0. H. J . Iwnsrai,
‘*2-J,c:zi:”3t;>.’¥’~§A1,B.i€attihal1i, IA I-iaaaan
” €t4I_£’.s Industrial Company)” . IE’OmII!5

-$:.r+§1.£II.i:.c1:nn«aunak.a1; Aduaetafiam
géapondezta 1 and 23

£

Wfififi fl

VJNWM

99% WWW W WWMWW mm »m.§m.,w W mmmmm WW exwum W mmmmm %§€%§ mam” W mmmmm wmm mm? W mWAm::=:.;s=»:;..

N:>.22OA at the instance at’ the respandant. ‘fine

petiticrxer huwwer was required to the

balance or the land cost in

R5.1£J,85,99’i.O0 an or befars

petitioner had sought .’£’::mj:;’Am§: :;tta:’t:s_i:>’n.:_’:

which was granted. 1-I;:~.fava.Vi~},._ ‘i:ha

railad 11:: pay the baiinca V. ‘avian th’§V
extended geriod. “1′.£}e t1:i\?i’rw’ § demanded
the balance price”4″i:k;iei’$a:§j’ii’V%.’V;a_§’: r_g:ze petitiauer
having .f’aiJ.a».§::i’ -to En account at a
Iinancigl’ ” A;kv¢fi§:”‘;thar reason, tha
a11af:man_f;”~..::”h%;+*:s:A§ ” fiéncéllad and am plat
rasizvefii’ to a tfztird-party. It
is that the petiticner is

hgiéfar at. this

the pandency of this petiticm,

“t.1f:t¥ i’$£iL;§éfL§dent was called upan to ascertain

wfiétfiéx héfn alternative plat cauld ha aliattad tic:

thg Vvfiatitioner notwithstanding the aarliar
“‘v.:¢?a2§ée11ati¢n subject to tha patitibmr mating

” tha conditiena under whirzh the said alternative

9161’. vttfiiild be alletted.

Q


E
§
m

‘=-‘:fi.”i”&.W& WW4 CGHRTQF Kfiflflé-==”‘i

Q
§
3
§
‘Q
3
Q
3
E
#
§
g
§
ik
§§

4u»uw’.»(ii’ ~v«::»~m«~nravn\m ww”#

Wmwmammum mww m.ww_m mm” mmmwmamakm. WWW azmfim”

canaidar sympathetically having regard to the
business in which the petitioner is eg£ §§””a.§ed,
which would be of much pmalic utility.

*a1bl- .