Government Of Karnataka vs Sobha Projects And Trade (P) Ltd on 24 August, 2010

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF AUGUST 2010

PRESENT

THE HOI\I'BLE MRJUSTICE v.G.SABHAHI_T;'~~--~f_g;_.'..'._[:   

AND

THE HOWBLE :vIR.IIIST1<:E K. 

MISCELLANEOUS wRIT4NO.2;2_S"OF 2o.II3fA °  

WRIT APPEAL NO.419S OF'=20e9 LOWEST/-RS)',

WRIT APPEAL NOjf3'II_4"O'F

2_(')ATIC)_{.EGi':'~4EfST/F{V§)"vV
IN w.A.4195g20o9: :1 "   

BETWEEN:

THE GOVERNMENT. OF.KAF<N-AATAKA'TV._ 

DEPARTMENT OFREVENUEV    

REPRESENTED BY=.ITS»RE\/ENO"ES.EC'Fr?_ETARY .

M.S. BUIIDING, BAN-f3ALOREe 5.50001. ...APPELLANT

_ . (BY SR1; 'R KRISPIi\I--A,VADDI'TIONA:. GOVERNMENT
 .___ADV_OCATE) ..... ..
AND? , ._ , . ..

SOBHA'PROvI'ECTS--APID'IITRADE (P) LTD.

 "REGISTERED UNDE_R'f]HE COMPANIES ACT
 HAVING ITS OI*~"EI<:E AT NO.211/19A
«. If-1.5'? MAIN, 2'"'"'CROSS, SANJEEVAPPA LAYOUT
'CLV-;RAMA,N NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 093
--."'REP~~B'*.* ITSMANAGING DIRECTOR AND CEO
  DR ;v1A.DI»~ILs NAMBIAR
- =-._S/~O...~ LATE SRI RAGHAVAN NAMBIAR
 AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS. ...RESPONDENT

(BY SR1: JANARDHANA G, ADVOCATE)



IN W.A.314[2010:
BETWEEN:

THE GOVERNMENT OF l<ARNATA:<A
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

REPRESENTED BY ITS REVENUE SECRETARY

M.S. BUILDING A  = _ I
BANGALORE - 560 001. .._APPELLA_NT-., I "

(BY SRI: K KRISHNA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNM'E{\JT  . I
ADVOCATE}    

flfl

SOBHA RENAISSANCE INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED  
REGISTERED UNDER THE COI'-'¥PANI.ES ACT""" v 
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT SRIT HOUSEV 5 I 'I
NO.113i/B, ITPL MAIN ROAD "I '- I
KUNDALAHALLI, BANGALORE -- 37. I , ' 
REPRESENTED BY ITS MAl'J'AGINGV.Dl'RE(:TOR _ 

AND CEO DRMADHU N_Al'4¥8._IAR . _.  _ __  ~
S/O LATE SR1RAGHA_V2ANr§IiA'M5I.AF%  I  ' 
AGED ABOUT 49'lY'EARS;, I"?-2   ...RESPON{DEENT

(BY SR1}. JANA ,=ADV_OC ATE)

THIS MISCELLA:VEO'U_SIVVRIT';-IS FILED UNDER SECTION 5 OF THE
LIMITATION ACT PRAYING. To CONDONE THE DELAY OF 96 DAYS IN EILING
THE APPEAL; ' 

._  THIS IvlIE§CEELEAé_NEOUSHVVRIT COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY; V.G...Vs'ABHA'Im' 1., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

g Slntiez t?.I’Ve’r’e. was appiécatéon for Condonatlon of detay in

4: Ithe~…’apDeaf and the matter has been admitted without

I”AIj-._CO-riSICi’etiIrTg the application for condonation for deéay, the Order

‘ Ad’atIe.dIlS.2.2O1O is recalled.

WI’?

\Ne hokithatsuffidentcauseisrnade outforcondofiafion

of dday in fifing the appeah I3day in fihng the_§fib$éffi3

condoned.

Appemésadnfified.

% Tilfige

‘ –if -T1?~_&Q:é

KM