High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri Nataraj Siddegowda S/O … vs Bharath Petroleum Corporation on 26 May, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Sri Nataraj Siddegowda S/O … vs Bharath Petroleum Corporation on 26 May, 2009
Author: N.K.Patil


III WE HIGH CGUR73 OF KERNATAKA AT

Damzn THIS THE 26″ Day or may 200§f f ¢

BE§’C$F.E

was HoN*BLE H.JUSTI$E’HKKiPAfi$ Vx fl~3 V

wazw EETITIGN §u.3o2éX2¢§§{Gfi+§ES):”f=f

BETWEEN

SR1 Nmmnans sID3EsGfina.T-‘w
AGED 26 33335 gj ‘ %%”.V’
5/G sInnEGownA,”, .-w; _~.=u H
ago manna VILLAGE ,’D poaT’=Q,°
KaLLEsAL_$A;ux¢’cahga3AaRAG&R’nIsTn:cT
% ‘;= *– V” j..;;-EETITIGNER

(By sax H}$.fl£gs§’E§i§;’~’ i
M:s;v.gANG§gAMm a_AsseLcIATEs, anvs.,:

AND:

1 CDRWMTION LIFIITED
‘3,’E£.1!f.I’i’0I€.T:€ t3*FE’ICE MID LPG BOTILEIG EIANT
“£iAIKfi.MPAD’E;«,,HE%%’ IBXHGAIKJRE 5’15 011

A “._ REF 3: QTS TERRITORY MANAGER.

‘%2.:saz*ea:raa 5

*.’w}o’nA2§NAND 3
~m8_31,&ncwoR’s caLcHY THEAERE RGAD,
.V manta 205?, KDLLEGAL TALUK
“n Tcakgakaa DISTRICT 571 439
‘ . . . RESPQNDERTS

; THIS WRIT PE’1’I’I’I€.¥I’3 I3 FILEI) UNI’-ER

f-Aafxczas 226 huh 227 as THE caxsmxwuwzau
*»_'<PRAzING T0 DIRECT $32 REQPQNBENT No.1 rm ALLQT
""?HE nmxmswxc LPG $55 nrswnravmvnsfixp am

mm » wwwnm vr mmnmmfimmm wmrm ?.¢,k*,$..3M1 wr fiAKN%'%é'.s<fi?%.§'§;é% .M%&".WE EQQWWET" W? KRRNAYAKA HKGH COUR? 0? KARNATAKA i-WSW cmm" &F K'fi.W%ATfiKfi HEGE4 C

R.

THIS PETITIOH COIEKG 013 FOR. ORDERS THIS
E33: THE G§3’€3F.T E393 TEE FDLLQWING:

{2
5
§
:

5

E
3
E
K
§
In
3
E
3
3
2
:

§
:

E

“un’Hwnrvap’-win waavb Mn. «mu-…u…u an-«mu w1Av.ww’=ucw wwwwjuwnmw -pr: mmaI’IIIIIIr’Irx»’n<"'nnwr"'u snnwwwn we-wawmmmm -men nmmaxnuawummumm |flfim,jg_fi ~g,,;\,g«qw:gng_g, q,,gng- g;-Q,

ORSER

Sri iLS.Ume5h, learned saunas; f¢§3t$§:\

petiticnar aubmita that thg wait pefiiiiéfi ma#

he dismiasad as withdxam-an.

2. Suhissicn made 5? the iéefinédifiounsel
for the petitionefi is piaééfi ah :ec¢rd.

3. %;i§’; p¢éi£fifin: ?i81 Lfiiamissed as
withdx&%n;_%£figfig t;§x.§fi’fihe’petiti¢nax.
¢rda#éfi;qgE§rdifiglyg
551/’9
Judge