JN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT 13ANGALoRE fT._
m1'EI)'*n»us THE 16'?" BAY OF JULY 2oog ~~--. ' "
PRESENT
THE HONBLE MR. DEEPAK VERMA, A=Ci'iNG'QH«IEF'J--¥}_§'$TiQf§" _
AND'
THE HOWBLE MR.JusTi¢§: A.S.I§OPAN.P{1_\ 'V
WRIT APPEAL 15:0. (3.2) A' ' '
BETWEEN :
THE KARN£.TAKA ¢a.GRo::,:ND'LI.s?R1Es V
CORPORATION L'm., (45 '.«:'*4.VF1::--ER~-._
;' 'V " . ' APPELLANT
{BY sRI:CH.t:; sH1yARmii; ADv.,)
Ai'$_.D'": _ "
1 PREMABAI =
W'-/O ESW££RA RAG
AGED Agour so YEARS,
AA R/A'I'v!!iO.6, 17TH moss,
.. SETH MAIN, AGARAHARA DASARAHALLI
= BANGALORE 79.
SMT KALAVATHI
" W/O LATE VASUDEVA RAO
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
R/A'? DOUR NO. 18/2,
13TH CROSS. JAYANAGAR am)
BLQCK, BANGALORE 1:.
Sm' PARVATHY MURTHV
W/O LATE: ADIMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, _
R/AT Noses,
NARASIPURA LAYOUT. 'A*MArN, - .
sm (moss, v19HAYAgANAyA'r»vR;.," " " F. . ._
BANGALQRE 97
K THARANATH s/0 zA'rs'T'BMVKA_R:;§APéA%'~i'..'
AGED ABOUT Y$RAs;; -- .. j
B.x.c0MPQU'r:D.1'BA1=?NAc;A;2, " 2
':*HAKKOTI.. .1 ._.-- if:
MANGAL;ORE2"--5?§'fl2 0 _ _ '
SI HANUE{ANTHA t"\'A(}~«SANDUR
AGED 5'2'YEA'R3"-, 'M = "
R/AT --NO.«1536, 3'I5~'_'_'}'H CROVSS",
4TH TBLOCK, JAY;'kNA(§1$.R,
BANGALORE"-1.,1V.
Vt:-gvmstxararfirvzassza »
s/0 LATE DEVEGOWDA
. V '@6333 ;aB1e;:=5'i2irzs::E:~z%r_1y:)11' PERSONNAL AND
._ zXDMlN£S'FR3'flWE REFORMS, VISVESWARAIAH
A TOWER, 'DRABABEDKAR VEEDHI
BANCsALOii'E-01
.. RESPONDENTS
” 5:3? ‘sRI;.fs’ NARAYANASWAMY, ADV., FOR R1, 2. 4. 5, 7 85 9
V _ VT THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 0? THE
KARNATAKA PHGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
24/01/2007.
This appeal oonfmg on for oxdezs this day,
mam, ACTIIIG CHIEF’ msfim, delivered the fo1;m9;;:g__: : _ ‘
Heard Sri Shivaramu, fir”
appellant mid Sri T. Nmayanaswaiifxy,
respondents.
2. As per tlgzef-:;)fi_c:c by delay
of 34 dayxéi for oondonafion of delay.
For the i1’J:L.”fl:’14éV.’afi£}avit filed in suggaporlz of
the ap;fiiic£2l3’on,.V been explained pmjperiy and to
stands condoned. I.A.II/O7
sis:-ni¢Vis-‘ u – V V
has been filed by the learned counsel for
for disposal of the appeal in the light of the
contained in 31:: order dated 10.9.2007 passed by
T * ..t }u1駔‘Ij)iv:isis3n Bench of this Court in W.A.No.698/07 c/w
“‘$.V.A.Ne.722/0?. The very same question which was
VB
projected in the afe-resa1d’ appeals has been H
appeal as well. For the masons tfic
dccfled on 10.9.2007, we are also of tiic
no merit and substance in this TEE mpg
dated 10.9.2007 shall be ltgpt in thgmm. i%
The appeal a:x:x)1di31g33«* Parties to
bear their own .
saw .
_ ‘a tag’
iJ%*Acnn9 Ch” ms 1
Sd/-
Judge