V' "AGED A898? 29 YEARS' 'V
Nc:w"r2T;a>4:.I:ss2=.15z<;.5LA, HIRIYUR TALUK
T V - PRAY4ING"'-AFOR' REVIEW OF THE ORDER DATEB 31.1.2009
H}?ASSED_IN MFA NO.9458/2608 ON THE FILE OF THE HIGH
" 3 ,C.3€iI..¥RT OF' KARNATAKA BANGALORE.
VA the Court made fa following :
IN THE HIGH OGIIRT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGAIG,éE
BATES THIS THE 3&9 DAY 05* APRIL '
BEFORE _
Tm: I~ION'BLF: MR'.
REVIEW P}"«:.'rrri(:§Ar§~1..%»1§.ijc:»»,_:':.:_3/'2;:.)'A:if;.:,, ;
AND :
ANJINAPPA @}=- 5% At»-m'A:~z F.¥;§
S/O.E:A£§G:%..PPA " '-
RIQ. CfEA'I"{'E-KEMBA, CHALLAKERE TAL-UK
HI_R'EY_LIR' 'TA_z..m:. V V " Rsgmnnsm
THIS P2::.'mio:s IS FILES (3/0 47 RULE 1 0? cm,
This Review Petition naming cm for admiseirm, thifi
"$
ORDER
The f)I’l”.8{‘3flt review oi?’
the order passer! in MFA 110.9458] Iii:
YPVIFW. ‘. , it is stated 31150 ” V
filed an appeal in MFA $0.1 ~th¢j*:1dg1ncnt
and award dam? m-1.77107
wherein the iighgity fine’ ” is
quesf.i0ne:d._ ‘ ‘V ‘- V
2. At the afgith-set’;’* it noticed that the said
Mm {rr{.’-agci herein slthseqilcntg-Lia the
disgmrsafkc:-f–tbé Ho.9458/2008. In the pn=.fic11t
MFA, (iuuajt .h;i;:.s A4’mI_i} enha1mui the onmpenaatirm as
Aamr;i:flt–**Awhi<th has been awarded by the
the would he that if the
('.éii'gji6I«'atic$:1.V"V'f'j;§1.icx2eetis in MFA no.1 123/gm, the very
'.3::dgx§¢m£;_in' mm Nn.9458[2()('38 itself would get emded.
A the enhancement would not hm»: any ormscqmmce.
i.
3. In that View of the matter, the Review is
only unnecessary and as; such it is disposed £i’._«_é
clarifitwrtimt that the judgment datnrl
MFA Nn.9458]’2008 wmlid
Nn.1¥28]’3009. L .’ :
Ammdingay the nf.
Sd/….
” Iudge
Aka] bms