High Court Karnataka High Court

M V Rajashekarappa vs The Board Of Directors on 14 August, 2008

Karnataka High Court
M V Rajashekarappa vs The Board Of Directors on 14 August, 2008
Author: Ajit J Gunjal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KA.RNA'rAKA AT   

DATED THIS THE 14m DAY oF;3:1GU.<;'r2Qi)8  *

BEFORE

THE HQNBLE MR. JUsT:;CE_AJfr.j}c3+uN;jA:,   

WRIT PETITION No.3o4+4 2,I2Qo2(s»s? es)'

BETWEEN :

M.V.Rajashekarapp:a,-._  '     

Aged about      

Working as Assistant ' '  .

Task Force:  -- _ 

Kamatakal Land  =  

CoI'porat1'o11_   

Shimoga District, Shiizioga.  ' ...PETI'I'IONER

(B3fS1*i.,S.YV.S111'§;aifi as
j '  Ba_je1i%fi§ Advs.)

AN13{:]    %

 The  rs,

. Re-:pré'sefite<i' by the

. .  j »- « 4. _ 'Managing 7i)irector,
 Cgzpopration Limited,

 Stadium

   h    Cubbon Road,
* " Ba.nga1m-c - 560 001.



2. The Managing Director,
Karnataka Land Army
Corporatzion. Limited,
Chirmaswamy Stadium,
Cubbon Road, 1 A  _:. _  ._ V 
Bangalore -- 560 00 1. at..RESPONDENTSf..__ 

(By Sr1.V1shwanath Assoclates, Aevsf; V

This writ petition isrfiled A:~:ic1e§ ‘226’v’and
227 of the Constitution of–.I_x:’cI_’2a’._wi;;Ti”.?r1 apragrer to quash
vide Annexure ‘E’ dated .0’1.Gi’.QO0O= R2 and

Annexure ‘F’dated O.1.07.2{}Q.2::by Rio,’ ‘

This writ hw3anng’ , this day,

the 0°11″ made €h6f??110″toiriaét *
The the order passed by
xant to Azmexure ‘E’ and the

order passed by the 15* respondent

Armextrjfie -v’}'”‘?”. Pursuant to these two orders, the

t on the petitioner is one of withholding

_if1crements with cumulative effect for a period of

and recovery of a sum of Rs.83,904.55 ps.

the loans with interest at the rate of 18%

per annum in 21 instailments.

8. I have perused the orders; ii

authorities, it has not been pointed oej; as
fallacy in the decision is
forthcoming that the an
opportunity to participate or there is
violation of p1ineip1es._of regard

to these facts, recorded

on the misweontiiiet eannot be faulted.

In so far of’ of increment with

cumulative snc:i’v._aIso’ruecovery of amount, I am of

the punishment also cannot be

while calculating the loss suffered

: the each item has been quantified and

damages have been assessed. When that is the

of the Vi€W that the question of interfering

penalty also would not arise. There is no merit

e rein the Petition. / fl

/’

Petition stands rejected.

Rule discharged.

SP8