M/S City Tower vs Mr Nagarajaiah on 11 June, 2008

-3-

that by the said order, the award passed by__   _

Registrar dated 22.11.2006 cameto be-*'S..t«'.~tj;=ed"~:,nnti},,:"  

funzher orders, subject to the  

sum of Rs.30,00,000/~ (Rnpeestlfirty-,.1'akhs   

2. It is statedtljat   such
amount, respondent/accused' Ofiioer has

issued notice of It is
submitted was not a party
to the by legal notice dated
2e.3.2ooe,kV ‘ on him on 27.3.2008.

Inspitg. notice, “is stated that as attachment

tord¢¥– is not VV”ii%iti1drawr1, the act of the

irespendent/”accused amounts to violation of the

V V ‘ ‘ direetion__

3.” 7- After hearing the learned counsel for the

and perusing the records, it is seen that in

.,,p1_z_1§suance of the attachment notice, no further action

9″”

-4″

has been taken by the Sales Officer as even A’
the lsarned counsel for the complainant. __ ” »
find that there is no violation, fine

Petition is without merits, Sa1’nn::_ is réjséted.