IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGAi,Q_R;E%’:’ .
DATED THIS we 28″” DAY or-‘ AUGUST, géaé V ‘
?REs&NT{
THE HGNELE MR.3USTiCE S.R.v4Bi\:W§URbi3aTH’v = ”
&% 4% _ _
THE HOWBLE MR. JUSTTCE A.’fi:’;Lx}:E5mG.0r>ALA jt§c:£v$f’€::;fis
BETWEEN:
1
CGNTEMPT 0? C()Ur{i;>~./.gj’;;€1.S’i”3.’i§iCJ§§Z§§ggG€38§CIVi1;)
K M ::l: ..: ‘V . 1: ‘ ‘ ~_
s/0 LATE r~%-_::H;2::~12aEa._A_L£~.._ V ‘
AGES 42..,YEN*iS. ” ‘ .
Rim” %–NQ.:2;~5, Sm ..MAI_l’\’.._ROA9__, V
BI:5MILLA”.’%i£§.GAR .
BAi~;GALoRE-;>;9._ – >
RAFIULLAM 570- Mfiamihum
Ac.-3&9 AE3QUT.3$ YEARS’
R/AT. r~ao.2;:3, am MAIN RGAD
awcx, JAYANA(§AR
‘A % « , $ BAi%GA_LORE~11
.. . CUP*’iPiJ7\IfiA¥i’¥’S
(33? SRI: M \}f -CE.15®DRASflEKARA REQDY, ADV’)
zmo 3
= ski” 5 sursmMm»:vAr~1
“31-:1.-. C0fViiViif5S1()fit:i’i
V” ‘BRUHAIH BfisN£;§Ai_(}Rk: fViAHAf*m(5i5\Rfiu PiiiLiKi.:
N . R. SQUARE
BANGALORE 2.
SM ‘2’ smioja um:
THE Ass1s1″Am” Ritvmut QFFICER _
rzsaunmti BANGALORE MAfifiNAGARA PAKIKE
3. In our view, apart from there being nae
vioiation of any direction issued, this is a classic case’.
abuse of process of law and hence, while disrnissi§*é”gf”‘tf_u§:
contempt petition, we award cost of Rs.§,O00/e– 3
by the complainants to Bangaic-re Meci=§.;ati<;nT«.Ce":z§E«é;,' wit'im1,_'_VAw~:.; T
a period of four weeks from today'.
536* V