{"id":150649,"date":"2009-03-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-03-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/srikanth-samaga-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-12-march-2009"},"modified":"2016-01-26T20:24:22","modified_gmt":"2016-01-26T14:54:22","slug":"srikanth-samaga-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-12-march-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/srikanth-samaga-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-12-march-2009","title":{"rendered":"Srikanth Samaga vs The State Of Karnataka on 12 March, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Srikanth Samaga vs The State Of Karnataka on 12 March, 2009<\/div>\n
Author: V.Gopalagowda & N.Ananda<\/div>\n
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT  \n\nDATED THIS THE 12TH DAYQF MAR\u00a31::s;---\n\nBETWEEN:    \n\n1.\n\n   '   \nS\/0.  \nag\u00e9a 'ab\u00e9iut  'ycaifs \nR\/a? Badagttxietj  _\n\nUdupi Disiiimt, \"    \n\nSzti Vadhaja  A\n\n' ' S\/Q. Gopalg\ufb02irishna Upadhyaya\n\"  Aged about 4?----3;:iars\n\nC,' 0. Krishnamurthy Samaga\n\n \"  ma; Ba\ufb01agupet\n  \u00a7}!ii'i11iL}iE);'Vi3'fI'iCt.\n\nAA '  R] a: Badagupet, Udupi District\n\n.A   Samaga\n\n 9. Late Subbamya Samaga\n about 68 years\n...APPELLAN\"I'\n\n%  (33,; Sri S.Vijaya Shankar, Scnior Counsel for\n\nSri. Y.R.Sadas:i:va Raddy, Advocate)\n\n'W\n\n\n\n-a:=-\n.|2\nca\n\nThe State of Karnataka\nRep. by its Secretary\nDepartment of Co-operation\nMJS. Building, Bangalore.\n\nThe I-fon'b1c Minister for Ccroperatiozl\nGovernment of Karnataka\n\nVidhana Soudha\n\nBangalore.\n\n8:. Recovery O\ufb01ccr  \nKundapura Sub-Divisiosz, Kundapum\nUcilliii District. -- \" V\" '\n\nThe Assistant Registrar of   \u00ab [--T A'\n\nThe Sale Of\ufb01cer \n\nOt\ufb01\u00e9e of 3316 A\u00e9ssiswnt Rtz\ufb01stri-Jr of\nCo-operaiive..Si2ciE:1:i\u00e9's..._ -- '\nUdupi\u20ac)ist1ict;*\u00ab. A' ' _ ' \"\n\n3:'-hc  ~\n~ Mahaiakshiniv \"Q9-yop\ufb01xattive Bank Ltd.\n\"  Udupi; Lidupi District.\n\n \"  Bhat\n'  W] e.'_\"_\u00a3,ai\u00a2 ' Gopalakristuua Bhat\n\nAggd about 65 years\n\n R\/raz f\\'\u00e9>.3846, 169' Cross, Gayathrinagar\n\nBagigalore-560 02 1. ...RESPONDENTS\n\n*   K.Prasad Hegde, Advocate for R6; Sri H.M.Manjunath,\n' _ =.Gove=;:z*nment Advocate for R1 to $34)\n\nThis appeai is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High\n\nV' w'Court Act, praying to set aside the order passed in Writ Petition\n\nNo.6141\/2006 dated 02.12.2008.\n\nThis appeal coming on for preiiminary hearing this day,\n\nGOPALA (30%, J., deiivered the foliowing:\n\n\\%\/\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
This appeal is filed by the purchamzs.    <\/p>\n
order of learned single Judge dated  <\/p>\n
w.p.No.6141\/2006, whemin 13\u00a2 has’va1i\u00a2wed   pc\ufb01\ufb01miev _<\/p>\n
of VI~responde1:1t\/Vaxijakshfe. Vivvi\ufb02hat   V<\/p>\n
Annexlgres ‘A’ 85 ‘B’ by    further
\nheld that public auc\ufb01e\ufb01  23.07.1993 in
\nrespect of the  leaving upon the
\nbank to   VI-respondent in any
\nmaxmer’   giving credit to the
\n ”    consideration V1-\n<\/p>\n
respondeiii\ufb01 ji1dg1x:\ufb01e1ait:Vde1\u00e9_>uior or her legal heirs have already<\/p>\n
 ‘_  the  is questioneti in this appeal, urging<\/p>\n
.  placing reliance on the following decisions<\/p>\n
af \u00a311e vv Court and prayed to set aside the order<\/p>\n
V –V   this appeal as there is substantial question of<\/p>\n
u u ‘   ‘1;aw..3_.vo1 11d arise and dismiss the Writ petition.<\/p>\n
   MR 1971 so 2337<\/p>\n
  -~21. AIR’ 1974 SC 1331<\/p>\n
III. AIR 1983. SC 693<\/p>\n
\\\/<\/p>\n
IV. AIR 1991 SC 7’70<\/p>\n
.’~’~’<\/p>\n
Am 1993(4)supp1scc 659
\nV}. AIR 1994(1) sec :31 and<\/p>\n
VII. ILR 198′?’ KAR 2559.\n<\/p>\n
2. Since the icarned si11gl\u00a2MmJ\u00bbudge.”ha9.:::”e1\u00e9t’ooI’att:d$r”” ‘V<\/p>\n
referred to the facts and  Ie_ga1:’ <\/p>\n
considered the same and ansWr__red  ‘same  of 3”\\:*_: ;<\/p>\n
respondent by ass1’gm’ng I’caso1;S”V\u00ab19oEajing  auction<\/p>\n
is illegai   85 ‘B’ by issue of writ of
\ncer\ufb01of\u00e9u\ufb01   is no need for us to advert to<\/p>\n
the facts of  S ‘ <\/p>\n
V”  ‘THe.A’iear1’xod”AScnior Counsel Sri S.Vijaya Shankar,<\/p>\n
 _1ia9 ‘V  the order of learned single Judge is<\/p>\n
it;1{:o1dsisteoI:t:’..–  the settled pxinciples with mgard to<\/p>\n
V’-.,’iudiciaE._\ufb01::view power of this Court as he has gone beyond<\/p>\n
ddeoiudion making process of the authority, Whose decision is<\/p>\n
  ohallenged by the IV respondent in the writ petition. The<\/p>\n
 learned single Judge in cxemisc of cxtraoxtiinary and<\/p>\n
supervisory jurisdiction has mndcred this order had in law.<\/p>\n
\\\u00ab~\/<\/p>\n
While considering the Government Order dated<\/p>\n
in the revision petition \ufb01led by VI-It3SpOnC_i\ufb02I7t_i{“~  <\/p>\n
single Judge was required to “i<\/p>\n
but he has expanded his judicial  poveeree ‘if <\/p>\n
appeilate powers under  of  Co~<\/p>\n
operative Societies A_I96’O”(for’;sfhoi*t, ‘theifiilles\ufb02.<\/p>\n
4. The another tfreiiihimpugned order
\nis that the    Judge on the
\n  iois consideration that
\napp\ufb01eatioza’  or the KCS Rules for setting
\naside ‘  property in public auction is<\/p>\n
not]\u00a7i$’i3et1xree\ufb01 ijudiegment-debtor and auction purchasers<\/p>\n
 is\u00aberm1ieous”for the reason that the auction purchasers have<\/p>\n
 the auction of sale. The impugned<\/p>\n
ortier  for another reason that the learned single<\/p>\n
  Jtidgei “sf3.ould have exercised his powers when there is<\/p>\n
A    irregularity as provided under rule 38(5) of the<\/p>\n
   __I?%u}es, while setting aside public auction. The disc’ repaneies<\/p>\n
recorded by the learned single Judge in the impugned order<\/p>\n
While answering the contentious issue on the basis of rive}<\/p>\n
\\m\/<\/p>\n
iegal contentions without considering the  <\/p>\n
the case namely IV Iespondentv-has. . no?!    i<\/p>\n
eariier writ petition to one of the  sa:Ie.,iT’he1’efc<i*e~VV<\/p>\n
order should not have zeviewedor zeepened'-iniV"t1?ie"'$econdV'<\/p>\n
Writ petition \ufb01led by  is .ft\ufb0111"ther.vv<:\u00a7:ontended
\non behalf of the  _ iitieiib\ufb01sieqglent to auction
\npurchase on 2L3;Ov7.199'3';".tVIie  iiies improved the
\nproperty at.  i'.:A_  single judge has
\neneneoeelviz    factor to set aside the<\/p>\n
auc\ufb01on saie.\n<\/p>\n
S.   issued for restoration of the<\/p>\n
 A_  $o% judg1eei1t~debtor\/ Viqespondent is opposed to<\/p>\n
 equity  juetiee and the learned single Judge has failed to<\/p>\n
iiinoiice :i;ei”;ie1\u00a2e\u00e9;:;t ruie 38(5) and Order 21 Rule 90 cpc and<\/p>\n
V -V the  of the Supreme Court cited before him has<\/p>\n
M ii   oifer looked, therefore the \ufb01nding and reason is<\/p>\n
_  hindered as erroneous in law.\n<\/p>\n
6. The \ufb01nding recorded by the learned singh Judge in<\/p>\n
the impugned order that there is no notice to the judgment<\/p>\n
\\\/<\/p>\n
debtor before bringing the property for  <\/p>\n
auction, as required under rule 38(2) of V. <\/p>\n
this plea of her and recording a \ufb011:1.diI1:get)I} <\/p>\n
case and setting aside auctionsale ofthe   L.<\/p>\n
the fact that Vi–respondent’s..::son  in the
\nproceedings and he amountutox the bank
\nand therefore, the sale of  auction is<\/p>\n
legal and   <\/p>\n
7. Tlte.    respondent has sought
\nto justify   the learned single Judge,
\ncontending that  J\ufb01single Judge after referring to<\/p>\n
various legala cotiteij\ufb01ons and examina\ufb01on of the record of<\/p>\n
d  em” O\ufb01cer has recorded a \ufb01nding of<\/p>\n
 L-.;f2:ici:  tliatwthere is violation of statutory rule 38(5) of<\/p>\n
  ‘conducting sale of inzunoveahle property in<\/p>\n
3″ ‘ ~ ‘ \u00ab. _ _V ‘ -\u00bb.pub]ic.’a1;otion.<\/p>\n
  The leaned Additional Government Advocate very<\/p>\n
T  “clearly submits that the order of the ieamed single Judge<\/p>\n
\\N~\u00ab\/ <\/p>\n
conducting sale, which are relevant znate\ufb01aE\u00abj”Vnfs;ieots<\/p>\n
required to be considered by the nevisional  <\/p>\n
zevisional proceedings initiated by I\\!..11esponiiei1tETlierefo1e, ‘A ii<\/p>\n
the learned single Judge found fatili  <\/p>\n
set aside the same in disinisging the ,I’\u00a23V.l?’i.’.,_Si(\u00a7:.n’…,_V\u00a7VVC’E:i’Ii0I1.’v,l’<\/p>\n
Though the revisional otder is___nl’ ordeie, tliie learned
\nsingle Judge has n.gh’ nA1.*-:k_;le2.j_bo3l.)\u00e9;e:ffa*niti:)\u00bbn that zevisional
\nauthority in its order  {he gxozimis and<\/p>\n
mcolded    35113:’ purchasers, other<\/p>\n
oontessjtvinglv   herein have not
\ncontested the -.\u00a2gl1:’5fI*s>tieedi11gs. Further rightly made<\/p>\n
obsexvia\ufb01one’ ‘_Ll:1at..ft11e’- zensons assigned by the revisional<\/p>\n
 V.  _ gxuilioritgr in  oniei*”iil1at procedure has been fully complied<\/p>\n
  sale in public auction, though it is urged<\/p>\n
 herein not deposited the sale amount Within’<\/p>\n
 the stip\u00e9iiated period. The reasons for rejection of nevision<\/p>\n
A “ii \ufb01led beyond \ufb01me as auction sale had already been<\/p>\n
ll eon\ufb01zmed and possession has been handed over to the<\/p>\n
appellant under the scope available under rule 38(5) of the<\/p>\n
Rules certainly amounts to non~i’o n of relevant<\/p>\n
aspects of the ease with reference to relevant aspects urged
\nin the case, the leazned single judge has considered Ruie<\/p>\n
38(5) of the Ruies accepted the ease of EV respQnde\u00abot~V}:)y<\/p>\n
assi ‘ various reasons and ‘ tl set aside\u00a7V_t1ie”o:V’;\u00a3e1*”vof
\n3 Y _ _ L. ed ‘ .\n<\/p>\n
the revisional authority.\n<\/p>\n
11. Further, the 1earx3,ed sin\u00e9gie  <\/p>\n
various decisions of the SI1pI”\u20ac;iTiCjbCO1}”1’t..  ‘Raj vs. V’<\/p>\n
Gurudilal Singh (AIR 1967 _.j-‘sef;-5b*e)_, Redhy siayam vs.<\/p>\n
Shyam.-.Beherivj”S:;ii2:gh {AjI:”~\u00a7”1’93*—:….s\u00a7c: 2337), Kadiyala Rama
\nRao is, _'(200o) 3 sec 37, that once
\nauction sale is e\u00a3\u00a7;1cl’e;de<:Hi;"_.'esho111d not be interfered with and<\/p>\n
setegside the eiuetion sale as a matter of course unless it is<\/p>\n
id estg\u00a7b1i.s;r;\u00a2aj;1;a: sale is besieged that material itregtllazities<\/p>\n
resofgted  injustice to the jucignaezlbdebtor. The<\/p>\n
saiiie hes 'Been considered with reference to a judgment,<\/p>\n
  1989 (1) Kid 125 (in the case of Shantharam<\/p>\n
  "Sfaj'ra5ppa Angadi Vs. State of Karmztaka), wherein this Court<\/p>\n
 -\u00abeilramined Rule 38(5) of the Rules and (1997) 8 SCC 22<\/p>\n
(S}:1ar1tideviVs. State of Uttar Pradesh), regarding service of<\/p>\n
ncztiee under rule 38(2)(a) of the Rules, which is akin to the<\/p>\n
‘N\/<\/p>\n
it<\/p>\n
requirement of Rule 285 of the Uttarpradesh <\/p>\n
Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952 and <\/p>\n
High Court \u00e9ccision, reported in AIR 1973_N.[:’s:ic1._1(‘}:’.f~   <\/p>\n
case of Pandurangam Vs. Dasu  ‘<\/p>\n
issuance of notice on the judmct1t_ tiebtor fog; <\/p>\n
decmtai amount constitutes   for V<\/p>\n
setting aside of a sale o’11._\u00a7311  Ordcr 21 Rule
\n90 CFC, even when   A let’   3816 certi\ufb01cate<\/p>\n
issued and  put in possession<\/p>\n
of    ooc\ufb01on. Extracting relevant
\npassagcs  ‘judgments and legal contentions<\/p>\n
 at _ps4\u00a7faV_:36,.  Vii\u00e9sferring to various decisions of the<\/p>\n
 Suiatcxxxe. Court  of the learned Counsel for the<\/p>\n
   5;:  35 and applying his mind to the facts and<\/p>\n
ieggit pIinct\ufb01\u00a7.ici\u00a7., axtracted, rule 38(5)(a) and Order 21 Rule<\/p>\n
 90 cpott and rccoxtieti a \ufb01nding of fact holding that there is<\/p>\n
A “:j”‘;rA:io1\u00e9;tion of Rlll\ufb01 38(i2)(a) and application \ufb01led under Ruin<\/p>\n
.’ 138(5) by IV-respm1dent is not maintainable and there is<\/p>\n
‘4 ‘material 1’rrcg11Lan’ty in conducting the sake in reaiising the<\/p>\n
award amount by V~rc:spondcnt\/ Co-operative Bank and<\/p>\n
‘W2<\/p>\n
quashed the impugned order and rightly made obsexvation<\/p>\n
with reference to attachment of property and relevaiz\u00e9trttles<\/p>\n
and extracted the decisions of the Supreme <\/p>\n
and rightly made an observation that earliexj  ts :t,’1ott_  <\/p>\n
adversary in nature between respoo.t1Ve\ufb01ta.v 22.10 <\/p>\n
quashed the impugned orderjtand aet aside  aliictiorij A\u00e9alte\ufb01<\/p>\n
by holding that fmdings and  1eco;Vfded.’.=bf;ei}isiona1V<\/p>\n
authority are vitiated  on aeeount decnoneoust reasons.<\/p>\n
Further, the learned    to ongn’ ‘ al<\/p>\n
\ufb01le has  at paras 71 55 73 regarding
\novenvzitifog\u00e9 _ noted  and therefore did not inspire<\/p>\n
con\ufb01dence  ttte  ofteaxned single judge to remand the<\/p>\n
‘t V. “-matter  either \ufb01eatttmspondent or respondent N03. The<\/p>\n
  in this regard at para 80 of the impugned<\/p>\n
ordef are  by us, we are in respectful agreement with<\/p>\n
”._the  and reasons recoxdeel on the contentious issues<\/p>\n
A f\u00b0”a1’ose for his consideration and grantisng the reliefs in<\/p>\n
  favour of the IV respondent.\n<\/p>\n
\\g\\M\/<\/p>\n
12. Further the learned single judge by recording valid
\nand cogent masons assiwed at para 81 of the ixnpugtoed<\/p>\n
order for rejecting the plea of the auction purchaseI;’s.<_:'have<\/p>\n
taken possession of the property and developed.    <\/p>\n
iovestin 1111 \u00ab'3 amount, We are acce tin ..s':–1me,as a;.\u00a2\u00bb<\/p>\n
learned single judge has xightly e:\u00a7e1"cisedjiv1iis.::revir:;v:<\/p>\n
power to undo the injustice Voaiosed iov. the IV<\/p>\n
respect of her property.\n<\/p>\n
13. Accordingly,  <\/p>\n
Sd\/–\n<\/p>\n
Iudge<\/p>\n
Sdf-=
\nEudge<\/p>\n
sN\ufb02Iek\u00b0’~7<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Srikanth Samaga vs The State Of Karnataka on 12 March, 2009 Author: V.Gopalagowda & N.Ananda IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DATED THIS THE 12TH DAYQF MAR\u00a31::s;— BETWEEN: 1. ‘ S\/0. ag\u00e9a ‘ab\u00e9iut ‘ycaifs R\/a? Badagttxietj _ Udupi Disiiimt, ” Szti Vadhaja A ‘ ‘ S\/Q. Gopalg\ufb02irishna Upadhyaya ” Aged about […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-150649","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSrikanth Samaga vs The State Of Karnataka on 12 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/srikanth-samaga-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-12-march-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Srikanth Samaga vs The State Of Karnataka on 12 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/srikanth-samaga-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-12-march-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-03-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-01-26T14:54:22+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/srikanth-samaga-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-12-march-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/srikanth-samaga-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-12-march-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Srikanth Samaga vs The State Of Karnataka on 12 March, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-26T14:54:22+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/srikanth-samaga-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-12-march-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1563,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/srikanth-samaga-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-12-march-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/srikanth-samaga-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-12-march-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/srikanth-samaga-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-12-march-2009\",\"name\":\"Srikanth Samaga vs The State Of Karnataka on 12 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-26T14:54:22+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/srikanth-samaga-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-12-march-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/srikanth-samaga-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-12-march-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/srikanth-samaga-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-12-march-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Srikanth Samaga vs The State Of Karnataka on 12 March, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Srikanth Samaga vs The State Of Karnataka on 12 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/srikanth-samaga-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-12-march-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Srikanth Samaga vs The State Of Karnataka on 12 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/srikanth-samaga-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-12-march-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-03-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-01-26T14:54:22+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/srikanth-samaga-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-12-march-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/srikanth-samaga-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-12-march-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Srikanth Samaga vs The State Of Karnataka on 12 March, 2009","datePublished":"2009-03-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-26T14:54:22+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/srikanth-samaga-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-12-march-2009"},"wordCount":1563,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/srikanth-samaga-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-12-march-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/srikanth-samaga-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-12-march-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/srikanth-samaga-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-12-march-2009","name":"Srikanth Samaga vs The State Of Karnataka on 12 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-03-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-26T14:54:22+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/srikanth-samaga-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-12-march-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/srikanth-samaga-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-12-march-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/srikanth-samaga-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-12-march-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Srikanth Samaga vs The State Of Karnataka on 12 March, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/150649","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=150649"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/150649\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=150649"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=150649"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=150649"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}