Lt Col Bikram Jit vs Rajendrakumar Agrawal on 15 October, 2011

* E.~
EN THE HEGH COURT OF KARE\§A"ii'AI{A AT BANGALORE

DATED1}fiSTHE ufifi DAycHP0cT0BER2011
BEFORE
THE;KxwBm3MRgUsTKmnxsPAcHHAPfiR§,

CRL.A'PPEAL NO. 1037/20 10,-  ' ' if  * 
ffiKHNEEN: *w '"

LT. COL. BIKRAM JIT.   ~

S/O CHETRAM '

R/AT NO275

RMV EXTENSION

157-'H MAIN, 8'?" A CROSS

SADASHIVANAGAR  ' _  A  
BANGALORE~80.   _ '=..,_..A1?PI«;:L1.,AN'T

( BY SR1 s.N.As}awA'f:4:Q9;n?~:A--:§Ay.A1\i2x%[.jg.;{xDV0cA'1*E)

AND:

RAJE:N'1::=RA2i{3':*.éi'A.R%AGRAWAL
S/O §\£IJR;'»\LIL.¢;L'  R;A§g¥2%£
MAJORV", " _  2 

C / RAJ8' £3;E;1'~:.I:':RA1; STORES
M31iN'BAZAAR;..'fOI{LV'1', SIMLA

 "  1, E-:1MA.c.12«iA:, PRAEESH .., RE;Sz>oNDE.:\'"§

 . ""§i§§i:ée¢;:§::R 333.40} $39.3.

1" - %;;x:'1TH;a.''E>Rs&;2*§«:£A'i"E:I}

;Z'%_L1.{)3 {N C§{L.A.NO.498;'Q§ COFEFEREVEENG THE
JUD{3E3gi§'Z§'§E'§' EZ>A'§"E"§E} 24.262008 REESEEZEE EN C.C,§'§'"62;'G3

 :«:':'{:':,___ i~

"§5%'§iS :'%§3F*'§§5*xL C{}?.'v§§NG FGEQ. GREEEZEES 9% 'E.'§-HS D.?iY§

 ';E"E4§§*-3 CQEEKE" .E'~.!§A{)E'; TE-"Eff: E-'Q L§.,OW'EN$:

ORDER

‘?£’hé:~ E<3a.rr1€=r.:E $911356} fag' the a§3p€Ha:':i £31435; 3. meme

Seekiizgg perf:miss3i0n {,0 re1;.ire:–:/~ fr<:»m Ehe cases; As couééfi be

sjyimflw,

_2_

$6611 from the ac<:0n1panying documents to the memo filed.
notice is not sent to the respondent. Hence, request for
reiire::31er11. is rejected. Tile rnatter is of §h::~:~ yea? 2010. It was

adjourned far office objections on 12 OCC?£1SSiO}'},-'ES… ""._ O,ffiC€

objectiions are not complied with. I"-ferzce,

dismissed for non compliance of office c)bje::.*:i0._fi;~3.. .