High Court Karnataka High Court

Vijayananda Roadlines Ltd vs Mr M H Swaminathan on 2 February, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Vijayananda Roadlines Ltd vs Mr M H Swaminathan on 2 February, 2010
Author: V.G.Sabhahit & S.N.Satyanarayana
1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 2"" DAY OF FEBRUARY 

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE. S.A'B'H'A'_§g:i'T   

AND

THE HoN'sLE MR. JuST:cE'R..S.N."S.A:TYARz.ARA¥ANA %

c.c.c. NO.521/_ii)(f$)={CivT.f)*«A_:v._ 

BETWEEN

VIJAYANAN-DA :Ro:A[:Lm"ES._LTte.,
REP. 3*-}( R.AN.GANATH G.A'DAGK'AR,
S/O iB'613--H"ARAG'-.GA"DAGKAR,'
AGEO1A..A'£.:r:;,LJT .r;5..YE'A.RS. 

O£:"£:":"L.EfOAL7'§.ADv:soR SLORA HOLDER OF
V_IJAYANfa'.N.DA> RQAD'LINES LTD.,
R'/O SIRUR .}}'.ARK;'»VIDYANAGAR, HUBLI.

 COMPLAINANT

  (B;»,I.."<Sr:_'i-E..: SHERARRKUMAR ASSTS., ADVs.,
 .SRI_P._vPRAS'ANNA KUMAR, ADv., )

mumumumunnioou

~  Mr' M H SWAMINATHAN
 "j_«THE SECRETARY To GOVERNMENT,
" DEPARTMENT OF FOREST,

STATE OF KARRATAKA,
M.S.BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD,
BANGALORE 560001



3

2 MR. AMBADY MADHAV,
DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST 8:
AUTHORISED OFFICER,

HASSAN DIVISION,
HASSAN.

 ACCUSED 

(By Sri V.S. HEGDE, AGA., FOR A1 & A2    "

CCC IS FILED U/S 11 & ,1-ZOE THE_,C'0-.NTEM'PTv..4
OF COURT ACT PRAYING T0¥_IN13TIiiT£ 'C 0-NTE»MP.T.
PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE  ACCUSED. "F'o.R=._
DISOBEYING THE ORDER DATED .,»2tt.01.2;J09 

PASSED IN w.p.No.19.56/2007_(G~M4.F0~R)"IAT
ANNEXURE-'A'.  _  

THIS CONTEMPT PETITI'.0N"-».CoMIN'G ON FOR
FRAMING OF CHARGE 'I'_HI--S. 'D._A.Y;~._SABHAHIT 3.,

MADE THE :=oLL.owING,g-'  .

Tsai;-.«. 'Co;:1'teCj;~n'Tpt_:D"-eetition is filed alleging

dis0bedie§'1'c<_éVto.¥:haé;dVii9éction issued by this Court in

 .  _ wk} a~;o.1vT9z55/'20'0"7' dated 27.01.2009.

_V  -.4vL-earned counsel appearing for both the

L"'pa rt'seV§ that the order passed in W.P.

N0".'19E'$:6./'2.:()07 dated 27.01.2009 has been stayed

.. .,   "   tn app,é_aL

'V-7'



 

3
3. Under the circumstances, the question of
proceeding against the respondents at thisVV.st§§'ge

does not arise.

Accordingiy, the Contempiat P:e,ti.t”~ion

of. Respondents are discharged” to

work out their remedy in Iejvv after
the disposal of the .*::;:i_.f)f’e_ai*’_.V_ ” ‘

it ‘ § W%€,tSd/h
‘x x IUIXSE

Sd/e
JUDGE

surrfa