High Court Karnataka High Court

M/S Siruguppa Sugars vs Sri S Ravindra on 9 February, 2009

Karnataka High Court
M/S Siruguppa Sugars vs Sri S Ravindra on 9 February, 2009
Author: Subhash B.Adi
.. ...--..m»...-umnn mun gfuafxa Ur' KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA Hififl COURT OF KARNATAKA REGH COUWF OF KARNATAKA I'iiGHC1

IN THE RIG}-I CGURT C3? KARRA'I'AKA AT 

mrrszzz 'THIS mm 9%: may or Faammxy ~ 

BEFORE

THE gamma rmaxzswwcs s;;aa.m (I 

W,P.fla.??é9}5. 2*£x}  I    H A'
amwsm   

ms smumsma m1ear<3& %   

GPEMICALS LTE}. " V. g
GOWREHDMIUR'   
KOLAR s1s'zm;.*.k  j 

  %  : %  X  ymrnonan
(av arm:     

mung-'

srmr S.RA'}l?fl3R43;V'  t    A 
s/.2m3 WESSED 3? TEE HOLPBLE RIDUS'I'RIAL
 A  --«.fI'RiBUHAL, BAHGALGRE aw cowzam m'3.3s;1999.

This Petitimx earning an fer Ordma tw day, the
Caurt made the fcslkowim:



. ..._.... u-1!

% -' %%%%%%E%g_a;m age were mm in him evidence.

.. -.,...;.§.. VII m-mnnmxsn niufl t.'UUKT OF KARNAYAKA HXGH COURT % XARNETAKA WGH COURT OFKARNAWCA HGH CC

werlman and it 'w applimbic to ma rwpcaficnt. 

smmmmt af  m ciaarlgr asttahlishes 

Managmnnt aise treatcsd tbs zmpondem:  
"I'h:e fact that the aettlmswt  the  "' 

rwpondmt presuppcasw that  3 

Re1y1ng' an thme faca , he  

73 no error in the award   '1"'i*'i¥;>1z:1a1V   ha
also submitbad that     yaam in

7. It is ;m¢.;§dia§u;¢am;mamma had raised
a  ix; x;:3;§:nk,%;w;9s;'%%g~ma it is alga m: in dispute

that an  surf the: woriman wan:

_  IT1-,n:§t cihpumd that than is m

 ism {W by «£113 Maggi; undu-

F:Aéctit:z;.A3;?§(2;}{I£}i:;"'i%f mg 1.23. fiat. The "I'Erihur1a1 has

   c.v.r.1 was Em and dtrntzummm

 

_   poatad far cross-wminuafiosrz an 3&1
T  However, the Coumel fizr tk pafitiam' did

fiat choaas tn (mass-mamina am tide Wimma was

tiischarged an ?.i€L2{3€}2. It is mt that the Cauzzsal



.......m wwwnl vi" nmmuuanmn Haul-5  OF KARNATfiKA Hlfii-I COURT 0?' KARNATAKA Hi6!-i COURT OF KARNATAKA PHGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH CC

rctrimd bafam C.W.1 was éficharged. Tm Counaei 'gas

effectively repm-minim the  t a_a~ _j_

2.10.2002

. Hswaver, thc Ceurisal dfi

rmntha, Caramel far the ‘-1

the case that 12:30 with an

notice on the that

tm n had was
well awam oij bafore me.

‘I’ribu11a1 ifimpite no
steps gjvthe awaré in passed
an 1&:.1t;.§;’§;f()E]i3.’ is mat an 13.7.2033,
i.e., my Em ammmza aim,

has mnaidwafi that the
sf sf wtzrkzcnan Tm without saekiq

any swma 33{2;(b; czftbe 1.9.53: and
the pmvisixms (sf section 33:. of the
Furm, ix. ma also emsiaema that the
is a my-man. This main; is furthnm’

by the t mada in writ mtitzinn at

para. 7, wharénm flu t Emglf all% that the

..~

….,.,,.¢.. ..,. ….m….mu. newt: noun? or KARNATAKA HIGH catm or xma~:Amm ms:-1 count 0% KMNAMKA I-IGH cc

mm cf aettlemeni: are appkable ta the reapandmt

aim and he 5:; bound by the t.
pmvc that the: rapandent 1m at worrlman ané
that the $163.1′ of mmm-mm Tm j =
33(i2)(b] of me Act and mm-any,
passed the order uxzaclar 3:39; dg .

c=.>:’rcronm’itarxdm1atl1%_:{&;e.;a§;hg;§. _ V
Amcrdi, the

d/__
Judge