IN Tam HIGfl COURT OF KAREATAKA Am§3A§efi£QiE%
DATES $313 THE 12"'nAx 0? nEcgfi@gR;2so3f_V*
THE aontsaz MR. qusTI¢fi_ x.L.fi#g§gflAiH
'éfip _VtV A :,W
TK HON'BLE M.JUsTi;E $.K.SA$YANARAIANA
R;§;§m§9;ia23£2ag§
BETWEEN ;
1 M/S. AmnL;'fiQUs:Ns%Am®"zunusrRIEs LTD.,
REP BY Ira EARAGIHG DIRECTOR
sax. csgwgfl P. Tgxéfi """EV
No 59,mRE$ifiggcy,Rqn'-W,*
GOL3 TOWER, '; , x_ --
BAN@ALoHE 25$,","<,"
3 '~ ' *$." . APFELLANT
(By M{S,BAS§?$PREBU él PAEIL 5 ASSOCIAEES FOR
.33PfiLL53T7 " ...... H
Ahuniru
1.
-Mls Aaflaa ASSOCIATES
Ego Ne 96;
RICHMND RGAB,
« BANGA$flRE 25
g,”PfiENTERSEI? FIRM REPRESERTED BY ITS
‘PASENER sax. ARfiflNL&L AH$¢A
Lgs/0 LAEE sax HARSILAL AEUJA
w_2 sax CHATURBHUJ
‘ s/0 LATE LOHLDA8AR
gun umxw ROAD I FOOR
saznannzn caammsns,
SUDHAHEAGAR, EANGALQRE 2?
3 SR1 RAJESH AGARWAL
N0 43, I FLOGR,
MOHAN TOWER, 50 RESIDEECY ROAD
BANGALORE 25 ~ V.
F.E$¥’O_I%Ti!ENf$”;–..’§ :”~ _ .
(By Sri: K mmmmmm RAG, 1:~*oR.__im..;_’ Q
R2 & 3 ARE BELETE33} ‘
mm RFA mun U/GRBE;1?i_’XLI’~–A2i:’£3I;E 1′.j OF° c§«;’ R1s-:
sEc.96 es’ CFC AGAINST TI-E mpfv_:13E§:iiE£T DATED;
24.09.05 mssnn I}? 0.3,.’ m.7.5:1jje,z19a__oN'”¢;:’*sLg Mfixm or xxx
ABEL. cm}: CIVIL ASHE *««s;V;;s,As’:oI§f,;’.~:5′ EA2~¥GALOR..’Ei CITY
(cog No.18) DECREEING ‘rHg ‘s;;’£¥1_*” .’R}£’5C§CW’ERY GE’ Mammy.
This A§ea:_f@@m§§g M¢n”ffor mGrders this day;
mnmmama J, 3.»-s..r.’~;;:;»y.;fer.~’. -f.<§i1afg:1ng;
TheA»»Lp&ftié$ ‘ 7hé§a filed a camprcmise
p§t£&idfif VEEyi$ fii§fied by the appellant and the 1″
res§$§fifit;” f,E
flV2» §héTa§§11ant requests this Gaunt ta germit him
4: V~::.§;s f<:3éJ.'ei:i. e V';-gspenaantwz and 3, He is pemnmtea ta
fd¢1éfifi ééspandsntwz and 3.
3. in View 0f the cagrumise petiticn, the appeai
His aispesed of in texms of the same.
35*”
3
4. The office is directed to draw
decree in terms of the c:ompromJ’.:se petition; –f.riew., cf
the settlement, the appellant i$…e1;jt:iti éd”
half Of the Gaunt fee.