High Court Karnataka High Court

The Kota Co-Operative … vs The Deputy Commissioner Udupi … on 2 September, 2008

Karnataka High Court
The Kota Co-Operative … vs The Deputy Commissioner Udupi … on 2 September, 2008
Author: N.Kumar


-1-

m’2′!’$f%-I’i0€)IIR’I’%KAR?lfi!’AKA,BAE&Ifl

sA1m1′:-us ‘ma 2*” eavossmmotm. mm

_BE’!’WEEH:

m’1n.-5715221 – A % j
rm:3mnm’rm’r -A
REP. mm GEZ%ER.AL«”””‘ $ A’
sm;e.s.aom.*:a;;n A
Mm avmmwa % «

(By ari : mi

an-quauumn

1 mm
V umzmnmrrma-ci% %%%%%

E5PDNDENT

my%safi’r=asE*;A.+x }mmAaaEnnmrH, HCGP)

rim immou m mm: Ummn Aarxcmzs 226

* 9’3′? Tfl OK OF Ilflfllfl. PRRYII/Ki TO
I!’I”;x2{«E3u-;8f=.2″!lI6′?, ISSUEI3 BY 33% R%PGHD%’l’, IR 80 F113
1′? RE’é!’..&’!’% TO DIREOTEG TKE REVENUE GFFIC-E%
‘lit! REE¥$’1’ER GR DELETE TE EflGH OH

35% £3]? ‘E REFGRTI PE’l’l’1’IOH 3 E?

-.’I4’HE ca-omnawtvs mum kg’

ssnmanucu nnanuna

-2…

THIS PETITION 60151349 011′ FOR PRLHG. IN 9′
GROUP THE BAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLO’WIK&-

-me peuaonu ma pa-efien-ea ma. writ p°t3*i§6si’}AL4? %&%[:% _
challenging the circular at Anmxum-A _
iuuad by the Deputy Commisaion::e:’, “1IJdi.1’pi
Udupé in am far as it ralntu in
omoem net in rafihar or
half: of thus mpotrtf C0-

opuafiue Banks.

2 A Pm_ma1of V. x
eperatiwnwanlsaa 3;; Banlm fox’ loan

A’
the magma fiwomthe ammaa

in therawmiereocrds, it h in

mm ty mm-~ mm’ .11

ties nut to main: such entries. He

mmugfisub-Remuaromx. \~./

ln.nna|\aII…lIfl ans ganosnlnos

-3-

3.1’k1elearna:ioounmafort11epetim:1eu’atsoafling

maimpugaaacimziummawaaantzhadocunautxijna
mrmge by doponit of fitle deeds do mt
raghunfinn. Emu: if it was 1 charge by an ”
Court. or orally, it dons not

autharitleo canmt inniat on ammma.

mian-men in required tn the
sub-Rafltznrh in the
zwemzze to mica. it
is cap-m an gaunt

document. such may cannot be made by

autlmriigr sea» % ii-mia~ mm. Tin
sm@d nature of were!
his ouhordinatea bx-Hag to

in to be fonnwed bckre nmlntion
~ theRegu’ mu. Unlusa G» pagan smut!!!”
“:: the maxmear known to law and undu-

_ _._ .._.-. ugaauugng nan snug’;-L