1
IN THE HIGH" COURT OF KAR§\§.7--\T}i\KA AT BANGALORE
DATED THE-S THE 19"' DAY OF NOVEMBER 2009
BEFORIEI:
THE HONBLEI MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREi}'fh3"§;{:"'v».4
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No. E0865
BETW :
Sa'i_B.Rudrappa,
Son of Honnappa.
Aged about 34 Years, _
Residing at Kuravathi Saw.§\/IEIE VI%c:::<iL',*.
l11dira11aga:*, V 7 H v
Mdkbexinur Village, ._ A
HariharTalu1<, . if V
APPELLANT
(B y S mi N i B'; S i cidafii tins ip;i'%2..,_ A<H-'()catc)
AND} » LA
' - ':The,Nr;*w Ind§.ii'"P&S'Sura12c€. Company Li mited,
_V H_a1'iha:j B1'ainch, 1" F100;",
_ . V'x'i§i1é"Cr$:'*;n_p$E.ex,
--A . V.Si1Em.i)g:a"ROa1d,
Harihfdif}.*~577 601,
' §.)d'~.{;1UV£ig€1'Q Désfiréci.
Repifeselatecfi by its Branch ?\/Ianagcr.
SSS:-E.B._MaIEeShappa,
Son of A;'na1'2wa1I1i Ba1'a1'nappa,
Aged about 51. Years,
é
__ disp()szi.l.
')
(_)cct.:p;1ti0n: Brick BL1SlI]CS:s'.
Residiiig at VlL'l}~'2.l1]21g£lE"21. BmBlnck,_
H&11'll1di'"577 60]. RESP()Nl)E.NTS
(Shri.R.Jaipraln°§o1" Etuig;l1.v_l_t_eA eounsel for the respondent would seek to
i*–,j’t1s.til”y._tlivelde*ltiction the same is not justifiable and hence the
(lt3i(‘l”lCifl()l1.Ql”~l//gm of the income. is set at naught. Insofar as the
‘Vc;(>nte11tt’otiithat though the appellant could have travelled by other
A i’tho.d_es’1.’ol’transport, since the appellant has incurred this expense,
i .V tliei appellant e()ulCl have he-en granted the same as well.
6 .
5. Accoaxiizagiy. the appeal is ailuwed. The appellant is held
€nti:]ed to the amount which is withheld, which is I/3’1′.%_'{.:tfthe
amount dr:Lh1e:t::d pea”so11al czxpenses as wail
which the appellant had im:u:*:’ed M..1Qwar¢_:E$7 ‘”‘1’h:c§h h’*ayV’e1Eing’L”.
ACC0l.dil1gE\J’ the appeliant is hc1d”-«e11§_izIie?Ci xix”) ;viLi{f’i~t..iViE$1;1:211
compensation of Rs.1,(}6,4{)()/M (R§’;2.;;,<)L:s;m'(i =.nIf7′<-w{i1"-a..H'ur1hi«a*edA Gvhly ) with
inte1'est at 6% from the zialfé
%hW h, JUDGE
JJ