High Court Karnataka High Court

Shri Rajesh Cotton Company vs The Director on 23 April, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Shri Rajesh Cotton Company vs The Director on 23 April, 2009
Author: Ajit J Gunjal


IMPUGNED ORDER/INTIMATION A’? A;+~m1é?;;;:i;;L’f~:;’a:§§’;”_2.
susmcrr N0.1, RESOLUHON No.1, m*rE1:}. ’14gA:5;/”29o3
PASSED BYTHE R-2. 4 ,

THIS WLP. comma cm F012″i5iét:’LimNA-R*{.:}iE:A1§’I&(:§’]
THIS BAY, THE COURT MADE THE. mjL{Low[iN<3:_.

«_.I?=i>.w.m
Mr. Mallikazjunv thA.2itV’h£:fVVvhas been
instructed to enter app;:’aVAI’a_ r:’ i1szrit’V_’1:)etiti011. He is

permitted to

ES’ to take notice for

mspafidcnt N0.’ -.

V. Evéniizbugfi. the matter is listed for preliminary

‘V ihearm. A’c«;>r1sent it is taken up for final disposal, in as

219; petitions are covered by nziing of this

R0. 31098 of 2008 disposed of an 18.242009.

ifhc masonings Sfaittd therein this Writ petition 8130

A disposed 0f permitting the pefitiemer to put up the

_,¢r};3.s1Iuction. within a pezritxi of six mmaths from the date of

cammunieation of the sanction plan. If the said exercise is 2%

r
t’
o

not completed within a period of nine ;;:;i5nthsf 7

onderj notice impugned in this Wfit §ct_:itien. :: fir u

fozftzitum shail stand revived atifiomafiéafiy H: ‘Eht=L,_’ ‘site;

would be forfeited by £216 £\P¥:’t§{:’_.’ Pefifififi ;

accordingly.

4. Smt. Vidyavaiii fiir: memo of

appearance ”

. ._ ”

Image

%%%%%