M S Manjunath vs State Of Karnataka on 9 September, 2008

0
58
Karnataka High Court
M S Manjunath vs State Of Karnataka on 9 September, 2008
Author: N.Kumar


u-new»-no -u-xv-up: Iursnnnurnun-1!’-I” llflwflln Idiflfina

11′? THE HIGH COURT OF KARIHLTAKA AT BANGAIDRE

mmn ms um 9»: my cm mmnmnm % H

BEFGRE

‘rt-m I-i(3N’BLE

warrpmmon m:.11712; * %

Balwaaan:

1

Msmnavmm « k
a;0p.P.smvANANJAM=’a*%
mE..r3mmrr47mms, f
€3~CC;AGRICUi;TLIRF3′;””‘V.; %
ma’: «rra 13Le.f;c:K, KUwAL1’~!AGfi.R..—-
TALUK *
msrmr; & mmxcmn

(By SR1 KUMAR – ABM

A111}:

1

mam A Am 13
ms sncrwraar TO

% k% A REVENUE nxmnnmmr,
% I’*aI,S.’EU!LDH!G,

fim. mmwnssxonme
comm DISTRICT,

% 1 mamas.

SOMWARPET TALUK,
aomwamr,

mar; xommr.

DEPUTY ‘rAI~IsImAR
Mm KACHERI A,
K1¥SE~IALNfiGA’R, \/

we I\J'[l\l’l”‘lIl’ll\d1 Inwuul 1-urvnl VI IIl”‘lI’\I’I’1l.l”\l\U1 an-var-a tau-at-m

I in-uv\J’\lF$I \II” l§J”%?2.lVM'”liF§&’\l”\ §’I§”‘h7TI ‘Jr l\l”§fi§’l”§Il’§l\I”I l’II’J’l’! \¢¥IJI\I \I(‘ I\l’|I\I’lIIJ”|I\J\ F’II$’l’I %¥’Ul\¥

3OMWA%I’,
‘TAIIJ K SOMWAflT,
; KOBAGU.

5 REVENUE msvmrm
KUSHAI.NޣiAR H0311,
%AR,
msnx EOMWARPET,
D181″; Kammx.

5 wsmwEcmRorPm.m1~:Fjkk%k%
mmammm mum S’P;_$.’I’1Q_1’5′;.. 3
TAJAJK SmdWARPET’,~ » g
ms’r;xc::mmJ. – .;.122.sir=~;x3ma2:x’rs

{By SMT awn –“HE._t:ff-Al’-‘)

13-as Fimngtmnan ARTICLES
22:5 Am},1–E2?’*~v%Giv-::;;fi1-E’«C£)Hs’?mUTION or mum
PRAYIRG; TO * ; R3-‘rAI-IAsILmR 11:)
consmm L ;%AI@PaE,3EHTAnoN <31? Tim
m'I*rr§.r.:s1m::_ mt. as PER Alma All!) '10
mas mun assgm €:tRIZ:E'RS"'A'1' THE EARLESI'.

Tsixs «1=£§§mon COMING on non

zmmmca THIS my THE comm MADE

' ~~ ocaunsai for the petitianu aecka

44 Court ix: wittxdmw tlm writ petiticrn w1th'
no me time: writ perman aflaer oouecm all the
ma:-y ducumarxtn.

wn-wnrun

2.. me said submission is placed «on record.

3.? want patilionk dismixsaed reserving the libmty
naught far.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *