Davangere Sugar Company Ltd vs The Commissioner For Cane … on 4 March, 2009

1

1M Tfifi 3:95 CQURE CF KAKATAKA A2 gE§AL$EE ",

sgmsn wars $23 ¢"':mx as maRc$$ 2Q§g-i

93253339
TEE EQH'BLE ma. 9,9, mgwgAfiAfi} cfi:$§.§U$fi;§E V
ANfi r  V _ 3 ,W
was fiQfi'BLE M;=Ju§Ti§fi g;§;_MAfi#fiHé$H
wax? &£?RéL $§§§¢§g§§Q9 §§$é2z$}
agmwggn: ;'V#f' 1, ;:7 Kwff» W3' '

Bavanag%r&.Sugaf-QéQfiL§a;,}"
Having ;ts,Eég§, a££i¢e-atfi
§9.?3!1,"P;E.HéQ3121' .
fihamanur'Ro&é; fia§anagera.
Dist: §avanagérg," " '

Rfby its Eanagihg"Director

sr1f3.S*Gagesh5 ': .. AQPELLANT

' ~ (By 3:: §ayakfi$3r SsPatil, senier Advocate

$$fi;f"uje,'

fez $rifPrabhuling fiavafigi)

1.

A$he Cammissimner far Cane
Qéveiopmena and Dixeetor of
. Sugariin Karnataka, No.32,
,’=QhQugu1e Hausa, Grescgnt Raad,
‘,B$ngalore.

“» :;i5The Dputy Camiaaioner,

fiavanagfire fiist.

Davanagere , , ‘ RES%1~ZE&§’iI’S

(By Sri.B.Véerapa, Gk)

aw……«—

4

the ificvernguentg Accexdingly, writ was

dmigmisseda Challenging the sazrfia,

aggeal 31.5 filed” _

2. We have heard ”

learned Senior CQun5ei’V””:}f€\;:- v.i;ifs*’?V_ afifi
the Gav: . Advogaté ‘oz ‘

.3 . The main cart’:-é1V11?:’ 3§_.Vcj:§i;_ .–‘*’;1§ 191§é9:I’V’~.;5;gr;;z;na=e_’i; :93: the
a..§§e3.,3,an_1; i~i;2a::;_.?,_:£ t-fhgenin -.:i;1~,¢'<f§.a .§§3§e;..1 ant has sent a
detaiiedi. "it has met daauctad.
zcgaai biils gayable to
= an cggportunity anti;

w:L’g1;-r.Q:;t: ‘ §’E,:ir;r1;f§Cci:2§xr:§t:i;;ir;gA”‘ :;1;z;g ezzquiry; izzgugneci order

“V-.ha;:§ pasigedi thexrefgze ‘:15: x:equ._ eats the

%.és;:~1J:i: Aa.i_’V3.<:~t-7 the aypeal. anti set as iala the

orsffxér by thsa learned, azéntzgig ifuéage as

well" the 0:913: gassed by E,-3..

After haaring the cmunfiaiz. fer the ayguellant

V' "$.35. an jggzzusai mi the izggneci army, ma are Qf