Reserve Bank Of India vs M/S Sn Finance Ltd on 3 July, 2008

IN THE HIGH Comm 0:: KARNAITAKA AT BAN6Ai,C§.§:E..V

omen "rs-415 THE 3*" mw or-" JuLY;%.[éo:3éj% f  

asroszg

THE HON'3LE MRJUSTICE Mr3HA§~: sH}w%Ame£3;;s,;;§

commw APPLICATION :xso.2c«s.2'.2:cio:e Ai

commmy PETIUQN"NO.i42~zǤg_0Rfii

BETWEEN:

Raserve India"   V

A st;ai1jtu:§{i{?,or'1;3%3i2atiozi'-estaiiiished

Under the Re's;e.zjv"e. B'a._n k.,0f.India Act, 1934

Having its Cafitvfé ofii_¢'e. ah

Ce11a'a1_ Ofiice .. _ ' ' V

Shahid Bhagat fimgh 

Mumbai-400001 and

,_z~3;:s.a1;¢'11e;v.  » .. PEFFFIONER

'  =.AN1_)_;  , 

 ._  Ltd.,
A 5: 180_,.Si:i_E.;akshmi

Raging.-xvendm Temple Street
9th'~CI't?Ss, Ofi} CMH Road

  AA ,I_ndii'anagar, 1*" Stage
" _ I3é§nga1ore~38 .. RESPONDENT

 §C)r.K.R.S1idhar,M.D.,
T Aged 55 years

W/(mate R.i{.Shastri



No.12, Royai Oaks Drive.
Norwich, Connectricut
U.S.A.,

Replay his Power of Attorney holder
Smt. K. R. Sathyavathi
No.60?) A, I Main Road
II Stage, Rajajinagar
Banga1ore- 10

    

(By Sri C.V.Nagesl:1, Adv.,)

______..__g

This a1j.p1i£;éific~nvis zffled ll.1j.1(ififV Qidér I Rule 10(2) of the
CPC r/W. S~ie(:tV1_t.-1V11V*'§3_V.3 o'fV1&11r§'~{}'{$3;cLVpiaIxi=:s Act, 1956 and Rules
6 and 9 of tJ:u§..C'-;Q;npVai1y VC%>urVt"RuI;es, 1959, praying that for
the I'€5&S0!1$VV';-SO1Véi1f1I-fly',  to in the accompanying
atfidatzit, this tar; Vpficascgi to pcrmit the applicant to
come Van Vrecotd'  VVa1;)':*e= case as a respondent, in the
ends ofVj11Sޣ3e.V  V V   

 This VV€V:V1;§;:qV,V)liCéiI:ioIVV1  on for orders, this day the
C»{}*i}V3jft made the" foII9y?i;ng: --

ORDER

2 cotmsel appearing on behalf of the

V VV V’ apgfiicéfiht seeks permission ta withdraw the cempany

‘afipiicafion with liberty to the applicant to file

V Véippropfiats application.

V

Said submission is recorded. Appficafigfin M

dismissed as withcirawn, with 1ibertyi”s.§i5ug}cx: f’o1′.; %