Karnataka High Court
Smt Nagarathnamma vs Dr Subramaniam on 29 July, 2008
3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED mxs THE 2912: DAY OF JULY 2003 H
PRESENT
THE HOBPBLE MR. JUSTICE % T' '
AND
THE HOWBLE MR.JUSI'IC.E "
C.C.C.IV\It1.*;;;27'}?_/_2,G§l{.)"8(C.NiL)
BETWEER
SM!' NAGARA'i7VHPéji{IuiMA«
w/0 MUNIRAJU. A
AGED so Y.r_«:--.sRs,:';__ ~ A
R/AT Ham; 2,, KU'i%'i'£i&s"2GE.!ND1!"'iaiYOUT,
NEAR $HEEP'YARp;«SM.rrH.I BLOCK.
NEW BA_M3OO BA?4%RxI.c..R9An CROSS,
BANGAIx;1§§;%2. ~ '-- "
. COMPLAINANT
. A (By NATARM...___.A£>V-,)
DR... S'§UBRAMA' 1 'X MAM
C0h€Ml$-SIONER,
~.BRUHA'_I' BANGALORE MAKANAGARA PALIKE,
' --_HmIGAI;oRE.
ACCUSED
(fgy Sri K N PUTTEGOWDA, ADV.,)
% j % ms by the learned counsel for the
&@n®fi$§fiflmdmmmnmmwbym$Gwmh1
% Lk w.P173j4;'éoo6 dated 24.10.2007 is complied with and
% & A ; .%%kjti:e%%;~epr§aenxauon dated 13.3.2006 has been rejected
2
THIS ccc IS FILED u/3.1 1 & 12 0? THE canmmpr
or» coum' ACT PRAYING T0 INITIATE comifznavr
PROCEEDINGS warms': THE ACCUSED FOR Dzgdsafziia
THE ORDER 1:>rm.24.1o.o7 PASSED mi
17574/06(LB-BMHWDE ANNEXURE--A.
THIS c.c.c. comma on Et)R"oaDER5
SABHAHIT J., MADE THE FoLLovm;G;_ T "
0RDEfi %
We sflunsel apfiing $1'
the counsel appearing for
the : the avcrments made in the
complgmf dhjbcfiéns statement.
\5»:..?*
after oonsidemfion in awordancc with the directions
issued by this Court.
3. The Immed oounsei
complainant submits that there is fit}
order passed by this Court.
4. We have
Additiona} Bmlore
wsmnt by W cm the
has been oonsklered»
and it oemplainant is not entitled
as the onier dated 17.2.2004 and his
V. been rejected.
'A the cin:umsta11ces-,.wc are satimm
is oemplianoc of am direction-issued by this
and there is no wmtm disobedience. However, if
\,f»/'\
the complainant is awievmd by the rejectionV.V€2; f'
mprcsentalzitm on merits of the ewe, it is
ta work out his remedy in witI1'ia;§i§;.. -
With the above observfitiofiaz,'
pdition is dismissed V V. V V S 'V
Respondent u '*-- b' =