High Court Karnataka High Court

Mahima Tile Works Private Limited vs The General Manager Ksiidc on 28 May, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Mahima Tile Works Private Limited vs The General Manager Ksiidc on 28 May, 2009
Author: N.K.Patil


gm; ii-=-; 3:”-

, &

=3 35%?’ §*i’,_é>’Wé%fi€E”&%% Wfififi QQWEY’ ?€&%Wfi’?&§€fi. H363″? CGUW” WF i€fiWNfl?&KflA WGH fifiwfi” 0? K&RNATfi.KA §I§€3%.£%”§” {W %&RNA”€”fiKfia H¥G¥’§ flfiifl

{H THE HICH CGU¥FKARNATAI{Afi.T

mrrm ‘I’I-IB”I”HE 287?’ my OFMAY 29$’ % R “


EFORE

'mEI-11m..E      '   

‘W.P.Na.93-8}’ 4(Ghv:i’~A_I1{§S}D(iV3′.. ‘ %

BETWEEN:

Mahima’I’iIeW::rh
P’rivatx:Lin1itad,

Byim Dfiecmr <
Sfo.]ateKS11hba;jLRa<:gV fa
Regal. Oficsé &'_[. fljO..V.5€fi,4"Q" ,' ; "

"' 1 "-.'3'='?:'.':'V-i'.'3<.'i.'V,-'..'i;.'.'% ' – .. PETITIONER

(By Sr}. 3 A

Bhavan,
1 Road,

% T Braimh Mama,

_ A %,Ksmc, Ma11m.dra Armda,
" *%aa1pady:

j V j Mangalure-575 B01. 3. RESPOI%’DEH’FS »
% % ” (By 3;-1 v s Arbatti, Adv. for R1;

T’§1iaWritPefi*5EnisEedundez*A1*5Ehs 225m-.1
227 9f the Censtituuion «of India, praym ta quash the
mfimfien ‘waned by 2111:: Gen-ma} Mamet and
pubfmhed in Kanrzada daily ‘liéayavaxzi’ dabw. 4.1.2C%

as par firmware-A :t1omE’yir1g auction of the asaeiikcrf the
pcfifinrxerr-Udupi in ace far as the peizitinnezr is:

This writ Petitbn eoztmng’ an fc:r ” §I’€’%.j*”‘.,£”5’x1sV»

Inm.?rmtl1isc1ay,t1mCourtmadg::,.1;h»;¢’fol§:$v’v5″ix’g’;. L.
ORDER”; «L % A

notifimficzn pubkhad in
dated 4.1.2003 vide auction nfthe
asacm of §{V6~V:’vL’fa;rvV’k§§’ pctitixmm –

mmparxy 1:163 W1-it pefifian.

2. csczumel appeaz-11 for

_

fior the 1″ reapondfl

23¢ mwwma em” mmmmmmasfi mm?-1 mumxa car KAKNMIAKA. mma cam? Q? mmmzmm mag cmm

that the prayar saught for by

I as the writ path 19′ n as not ss:..x,rsma3′ fear

‘ fine. to efilux of time; and in view of the

r urdm’ mm by thin mm; an 21.12am, the

‘jj’ ¥1.u:.§t§9z: precaecfw cammt be ovoznfiuct-ad.

mwwzm WV E’%.W!s%fl’&.#%K§”%%fi% flflfi-WW %%fi’%$W%,_.’$««§’EI”‘ ?%iV”@fi[5W.¢”‘§ei.5″&ii”%u~:?9*'”-2;

M…….._.._.m.,..u