High Court Karnataka High Court

Linga Reddy B A vs Karnataka State Transport … on 31 January, 2011

Karnataka High Court
Linga Reddy B A vs Karnataka State Transport … on 31 January, 2011
Author: V.G.Sabhahit And B.Manohar
IN'THEF§G%fCOURTCX:KARNATAKA,BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 31st my {BF JANUARY, 

PRESENT

THE HOFWBLE EVER. 3USTIC¥EA~»V.fiG.Si§éHAi:$q1T"\'"   A'

AND

THE HOEWBLE MR.}'LJ_ST.I_CE B; MARVQRHAAR"-V~ 

Misc. §w\:o.1«"i%'i122V%jQ%f"'2Q11

«WRLET PETITION NOR": 1'.Q'4§11«0é'  .2010 (MV)

BETWEEN:    

1.

BA LINGA ‘RE.a;:>Y,_, ”

S/Q ‘E.;AT*E..ES. AfiI:A”?JTH».VREDDY;”‘
AGED A5015-TV:~«~..54R Y’EARs_,- –
PROP: R. E. “‘FR;’.\.V’2:’i«E,E§~,.._

H EAD V9051” O’FF’1C’E.- ROAD,
CH1TRAD.:.;RGA;,._ ~

– 2. ..’;:’}/:”:j..%A,’:=’Air”r~1EMA”B–E<3uM,

V' «._vv;'0'.fc._rv:.QHAMMED NASRULLA SHARIFF,
'A{E?EED_'AB'QUT: 58 YEARS,

. "-"PROPX;_S.V§3;V"TRANSPORT,
W ALI MOHI+'_.L;A, 3"?' BLOCK,

"CHI"rR'A-DURGA.

«. …PETITIONERS

A {‘5$?”:;RI B.R SHAILENDRA & SR1 SHIVANANJAPPA, AEDVS.)

‘ ;5§;’\E$:

1. KARNATAKA smrg TRANSPORT

AuT:~;oRI”W,.

2

5?” FLOOR, MS, BUILDING,
Dr”. AMESEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE A 560 001,

(BY ITS SECRETARY)

2. THE SECRETARY, 1 T 1′

KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT AUTHOR.I§fYL R” %

5?” FLOOR, M5. Buzmxms,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, * ..

BANGALORE A 1,

3. MANAGING DIRECTOR,
K.S.R.T.C.

CENRAL OFFECE,
K.H. ROAD,
BANGALORE.

4. M/s. ANDHRA<PRAD.ES'H .sTA*TEA_TRANVs'P'oRT
CORPORATION,j'– '_
MURSHIDfl..,BA;1E§,._w_ ~ ' _V
HYDERABAQ,
(av ITS Ass1s;:1fArxr'TRA.mC MANAGER)

5. B.G;’A.MA.NOHARf=.V
S/O B;-M. -r:;uRAP’;éA,.. ‘
AGED A’B.oUTV:V 23.4 “~.{EA~–Rs,
:2′;/s. RAJ/1\ M.QTORS_.

.fBES;_£.DE..V_SREE”LG-DGE,

PaB’._R’.éOA+D !
T’D;A\.2’v.A_NAGgRE.

5; SR: %*€Af;£’iJ5?1AN TRANSPORT

“‘€£–OM_i5A§\|*f PVT. LTD.
we, ‘BADAGABETTUR,

.. VALUDUPI » :6,

_ REPRESENTED BY EXECUTIVE
“SAIRECT”€}Rg,

SR1 GOPALAKRISHNA NAYAK,

R AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS. .’.RESE3ONfI}ENTE3

(av @oW.ADvcAT£ FGR R1 & R2,

3

SR1 KALEEMULLAH SHARIEFF, ADV. F-“QR R3,
SR1 A. SRIKANTH, AD\2′., FOR R5

SR1 L T GOPAL, ADV. FOR R4,

SR1 A S PRASANNA KUMAR, ADV. FOR R6
SR1 S PRAKASH SHETTY, ADV. EOR R4)

IvIIsc.w rTo.1122/201: IS f?.E,LED I;Ii\I’I;:I€§§i2;vvS’§CTIc.I§” S’

151 OF THE CIVIL PROCESURE c;jaE”R{IA’D v¢ITH.;;RT”ICLE
226 Of’ THE CGNSTITUTION QF ;’I’I\£.E15IA*._PR.iiYIE’iiE.,

EXTEND THE INTERIM ORDER OF ::fIvi.TuS Q.LJO”GRATqTm–..%
EARLIER UNTIL FURTHER VQREIERS,’-..pEr~TmrgI(;..1DTISPGSAI,T

OF THE ABOVE PETITITON, INTV’i_:_R.E;ST JUSTICE
AND EQUITY. ‘

THIS MISC.W C0.r§z”I:\:céILo2.;xIV,.IiG.¥§;VI :(3RDERS THIS DAY,
SABHAHIT 3., MADE THE f*7CV}L¥;C)V\/’–:’IN.i’§:”‘=

0 $1: S S’

7-2~2o_11_, .sL:’§;j.e::§”‘i:q*¢_§5n.;::tion that the petitioners shai:

hoid VaIAiE§Ef41′)€*rFT’Ii’f– tv:r5′..V();2.e$:i*aI:4éV.’the vehicfes.

§..§co.rdin§;§’y’,’v’—–r–;–%s’c.W.1122/2011 is aiiowed.

mgk/~*