{"id":30945,"date":"2009-09-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-09-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-karnataka-by-its-chief-vs-ms-mysore-plantation-ltd-quard-on-15-september-2009"},"modified":"2016-01-27T10:29:31","modified_gmt":"2016-01-27T04:59:31","slug":"the-state-of-karnataka-by-its-chief-vs-ms-mysore-plantation-ltd-quard-on-15-september-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-karnataka-by-its-chief-vs-ms-mysore-plantation-ltd-quard-on-15-september-2009","title":{"rendered":"The State Of Karnataka By Its Chief … vs M\/S Mysore Plantation Ltd Quard … on 15 September, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
The State Of Karnataka By Its Chief … vs M\/S Mysore Plantation Ltd Quard … on 15 September, 2009<\/div>\n
Author: K.L.Manjunath & B.V.Nagarathna<\/div>\n
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BARGRLQRE\n\nDATED THIS THE 15\"'nAx or sEPTEMRER}jR\ufb01a\u00a7gv\n\nPRESERT\n\nTHE HON'BLE MR.JUsTTcEyR}L}MAxJURRTRxyE\nTHE HON'BLE Ms;JU$TIcE_R.v.RRGRRATHNA\n\nR.F.A.NoTi0b3.oE'2ob15\nBETWEEN\n\n1 THE STATE QRuKARNmjaK\u00e9\"1R?R\"\nBY IT3_\u20acHIEF SEERETARX 3\n\nBAN$AL\u00a7RE.,} .\n\n2V THE BER\ufb01T\u00a5'c\u00e9EsERvAToR\n',oE FOREST W,2__\nRoRPA'n:v:sToN'\nKoRPA._; 'V\n'T APPEkLANTS\n\nR=,w(3\u00a7Rs;i,: M B PRABHAKAR,GOVT.ADV.FOR\n\"_AEPELLA\ufb02TS\")\n\n .#ND,: \n\n1 jM\/S MYSORE PLANTATION LTD\n\"=QUARn HITLOW\nKOPPA 577 126\nCOMPANY REGD UNDER THE INDIAN\nCOMPANIES ACT\nREP BY A PERIYA KARUPPAN\ns\/o S.P.R. ADIKKAPPA CHETTIAR\n50 YRS\nMANGER, P.A HOLDER\nRESPONDENT<\/pre>\n
Pd<\/p>\n
(By Sri : VYASA RAO K S FOR RESPONDENT )<\/p>\n
THIS RFA FILED 17\/8 96 0F cpc AGAINST THE
\nJUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 20\/0’7\/2001 PASSED IN
\nos NO.24\/94 on THE FILE OF THE cIvIL”‘—-.>JUDGE
\n(SR.DN.) & cum, CHIKMAGALUR, PARTLY _DE_C-REEING
\nTHE SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF THE AMOUIsI.’_Ij’ .A1’~:D_. F99.
\nINJUNCTION FROM TAKING COERCIVE STEDS.” *’ <\/p>\n
THIS APPEAL COMING _oN__ FoI<""HE\u00a7ARiNG'. TF.Is\u00bb_<\/p>\n
DAY, MANJUNATI-I J, DELIVERED 'TE-IE".FOLI;\u00a7)E\u20ac'I1\u00a7IG'iVVV I
\nJU1BG1V\u00a3E1N'I'—- A  — ..\n<\/p>\n
The appellants were defendants in e.S.NO.<\/p>\n
24\/V9’4t”‘F’ emf}; the  \u00a3’iI\u00e9 of”‘C:itvil Judge, (Sr . Dn. ) ,
\nChi5k\ufb01ag\u00e9lnrt}VtTd\ufb02\ufb01he respondent was the
\nplaint\ufb01ilffv; TA1′;eV”*suit was instituted by the<\/p>\n
resgondenttplaintiff to direct the defendants<\/p>\n
“-“sum of Rs.2,94,4’79\/—- together with<\/p>\n
“Anterest’: at 15% p.a. from 8.2.1992 on<\/p>\n
Rs;I,’:.64,27o\/- and from 23.7.1992 on the<\/p>\n
xx_halance amount of Rs.1,30,209\/- and to<\/p>\n
E restrain the defendants from taking any<\/p>\n
coercive steps to recover a sum of<\/p>\n
Rs.2,89,162\/- as per the demand of 2″‘<\/p>\n
<9"\n<\/p>\n
defendant dt.5.2.1993 and 21.4.1993. The suit
\nfiled by the plaintiff came to be decreed by<\/p>\n
the Judgement and decree of the trial court<\/p>\n
dt.2Um July 2001. Challenging the $\ufb01dgaent_<\/p>\n
and. decree of the trial mcourt,.gthe_:presentf x<\/p>\n
appeal is filed.\n<\/p>\n
2. For the sake \ufb01ofx conv\u00e9nienc\u00e9i the
\nparties would .het referred ,to \u00abas'”per their
\nstatus before the \u00a2onrt7helon3ij<\/p>\n
3,–vi\u00b03heR ” plaintiff is a company<\/p>\n
incorporatedirundery the provisions of the<\/p>\n
Conpanies~_hct.’ The plaintiff company is<\/p>\n
A*,havingrfaa coffee estate in Chikmangalur<\/p>\n
i”_t\u00a7istrict;” contending that excess shade trees<\/p>\n
‘in”its coffee plantation are required to be<\/p>\n
” cleared in the interest of the plantation, the<\/p>\n
dplaintiff approached the authorities to seek<\/p>\n
permission to fell the excess shade trees. The
\npermission was granted for felling of 750<\/p>\n
marked and selected timber trees.<\/p>\n
3’,<\/p>\n
Accordingly, 750 trees were felled by the
\nplaintiff. At the time of transportation, the
\ndefendants demanded the plaintiff to pay the<\/p>\n
value of the reserved trees.\n<\/p>\n
4. It is not in W’dispnted”ithat{; theslf<\/p>\n
defendants identified abont #4 reserved trees.<\/p>\n
The plaintiff in order to transport the trees<\/p>\n
felled by it executed the Indemnity bond in<\/p>\n
favour of the ‘defendants dstating that the<\/p>\n
valne_–offWthe<pMalki fwould be paid to the
\nGoverneent and thereafter a demand was made by<\/p>\n
the zdefendantsl Based on the demand, a<\/p>\n
".portionfof the demanded amount was paid by the<\/p>\n
"_"plain\ufb01iffff The remaining amount was not paid.<\/p>\n
Hewever} steps were taken to recover the<\/p>\n
"*balance amount of Rs.2,94,479\/m the suit was<\/p>\n
Reiinstituted by the plaintiff on the ground that<\/p>\n
the trees felled by it were not reserved trees
\nand it belongs to the plaintiff and that the<\/p>\n
Indemnity bond was executed under the threat<\/p>\n
&,<\/p>\n
as the felling permission was urgentiv needed<\/p>\n
by it. In the circumstances, the.suit–nes_<\/p>\n
filed for refund of the Hamnnnt;<neidL'hyxtitf.x<\/p>\n
towards the portion of the reserved trees and<\/p>\n
for perpetual injunction to Frestrain the
\ndefendants from taking any coercive steps to
\nrecover the balance demanded amount.<\/p>\n
5. ;’=1″1′:e_:’.”de_fend\u00e9nt\u00a7’.jf–fiied the written<\/p>\n
the plaintiffais not maintainable. According
\nto  -the “p.:iei”nt’i”\u00a3\u00a3 is liable to pay the<\/p>\n
vaiue of the timber worth Rs.5,83,64l\/– as the<\/p>\n
A’n\ufb011aintiff has removed the reserved trees and<\/p>\n
f.”thatnthe;\u00a7iaintiff on its own has executed an<\/p>\n
indemnity bond and a portion of the amount was<\/p>\n
“Iaiso paid contending that the Government being<\/p>\n
ltithe owner of the reserved trees, he is<\/p>\n
entitled to claim the value of the Malki. In
\nthe circumstances, the defendants requested<\/p>\n
the Court to dismiss the suit.\n<\/p>\n
<V<\/p>\n
6. Based on the above p1eadings;_ the<\/p>\n
following issues were framed:\n<\/p>\n
1.<\/p>\n
“liabl\u00e9s to<\/p>\n
Does plaintiff proves thatV all dtrees\ufb02u
\nincluding 750 marked and felled trees from *
\nthe schedule land and felled as per the?<\/p>\n
permission of 2″‘Q defendant’ ‘H;\ufb01:Q.,
\nexclusivelY belonged to it? ” = =’~ V<\/p>\n
Do defendants prove*.thatq reserved” trees
\nfrom out of 750 marked and felled trees
\nfrom the schedule land are trees belonging<\/p>\n
to Government? _–\n<\/p>\n
Does plaintiff*proves_that on 7.2.92 under
\npressure defendant obtained Indemnity Bond
\nfrom’hi\ufb01 to pay malhi value fined by them
\nor defendant 30.2 and the said Indemnity<\/p>\n
‘BondVis’unjnst?f;\n<\/p>\n
._ Do udefendantsl prove that plaintiff is<\/p>\n
_ liable, to pay total malki value of
\n“‘gRSn5:33}541\/n?\n<\/p>\n
l\ufb02oes plaintiff proves that defendants are<\/p>\n
_ V_ refund the malki value of
\nRs;$;94,479\/~ called from him together<\/p>\n
%with interest at the rate of 15% per annum
\n“_from the respective dates of payments?<\/p>\n
Does plaintiff proves that suit notice to
\ndefendants is legal and valid?\n<\/p>\n
What Order or decree?\n<\/p>\n
,3,\/’<\/p>\n
7. In order to prove their respective
\ncontentions, the Power of Attorney Holder of<\/p>\n
the plaintiff has been examined as aw; and he<\/p>\n
relied upon Ex.Pl to P20. On behalf of theft<\/p>\n
defendants, one Channappa was examined as pwl.<\/p>\n
The defendants relied_upon\ufb01Ex.D1 to 911; ,\u00a2\ufb01e_<\/p>\n
trial court, considering the euidence let in
\nby the parties fheld ,issue”gNo.1 and 6 in
\naffirmative, issue Nos!Z_to dfin negative and<\/p>\n
issue — jE\u00a2nSW 7 partly in affirmative.
\nAccordingly, “the?Vsuit of the plaintiff has<\/p>\n
beenr decreed directing the defendants to<\/p>\n
.A Wrefuind.,a’\u00ab–..sum of Rs.2,94,4’79\/- with interest at<\/p>\n
lhfE%\u00ab”per_\ufb02annum and further restrained the<\/p>\n
defendants from recovering the balance amount.<\/p>\n
‘*Thiss Judgment and decree are called in<\/p>\n
27-guestion in this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
8. We have heard the learned counsel for<\/p>\n
both the parties.\n<\/p>\n
\\<'\/<\/p>\n
9. The main contention of the learned
\nGovernment Advocate Mr. Prabhakar is that the<\/p>\n
trial court has comitted a serious error in<\/p>\n
considering that the 750 trees felled hy thefp<\/p>\n
plaintiff were exclusively helonq to it germ’<\/p>\n
though the amount demanded hy the _defendants<\/p>\n
was in respect of gthe reserved trees.
\nAccording to hinf the learned Judge did not
\nconsider the nature_ of ~tr\u00a7\u00e9\u00e9g felled. by ‘the<\/p>\n
plaintiff and did not make any effort to find
\nout the difference hetween the reserved trees<\/p>\n
and utreesaphelong to the plaintiff. On<\/p>\n
. Racconnt of the error committed by the trial<\/p>\n
‘_ court tin “not distinguishing the nature of<\/p>\n
timber”f and the amount claimed by the<\/p>\n
“*defendants, the suit of the plaintiff has been<\/p>\n
Z7!vrong1y decreed. He further contends that the<\/p>\n
trial court has failed to see that when the
\nplaintiff on its own has executed an Indemnity<\/p>\n
bond and has paid a portion of the value of<\/p>\n
(V…\n<\/p>\n
the timber demanded by the defendants, it had<\/p>\n
no authority to grant a decree.\n<\/p>\n
contends if really the plaintiff [was –$\u00a2\u00a3;a<\/p>\n
liable to Pay the value of theatimher, there?<\/p>\n
was no necessity for the plaintiff_to’execute<\/p>\n
an Indemnity bond and \ufb02aking part paynent of
\nit and two years later to institute a suit to
\nrestrain the defendants’ iron _recovering the<\/p>\n
balance amount and to refund the amount paid<\/p>\n
by the plaintiffxyeluntarily having understood<\/p>\n
the nature of trees fell by the plaintiff.<\/p>\n
3,103. The ” learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
iyrespond\u00e9ntfplaintiff contends that in view of<\/p>\n
A$x.DlrlBEhe reserved trees means only the<\/p>\n
la sandal wood knees and<\/p>\n
Vgi\ufb02ktlif
\n‘ %”i%:gf trees and all<\/p>\n
\u00e9\/’<\/p>\n
‘ the remaining trees were exclusive properties<\/p>\n
riof the plaintiff. Therefore, he contends that<\/p>\n
the trial court is justified in decreeing the<\/p>\n
suit .\n<\/p>\n
plaintiff are unreserved trees then the
\nplaintiff need not pay the market value of the<\/p>\n
timber as it is not the case of the_\u00a7overnnent<\/p>\n
that the unreserved trees were grown S\u00a7*\u00a3h\u00e9;<\/p>\n
Government in respect of the plantationf fof7<\/p>\n
the plaintiff in question I f p__ y
\nby. ‘a_”\u00bb\u00a3aJy4%\n<\/p>\n
14. Admittedly, y\ufb02the_ peantation in<\/p>\n
question has been oranted by”the Government in<\/p>\n
the:’iVyear…:sv1_89dlf”andp:’thereafter in the year 1943
\nthe plaintiffe\ufb01onpany has purchased it under<\/p>\n
registered sale deed from its previous owner.<\/p>\n
‘f*- \ufb01herefcge, Hth\u00e9” short question is that what<\/p>\n
 felled by the plaintiff and<\/p>\n
Awhether it falls under the reserved trees or<\/p>\n
in not,_3<\/p>\n
15. As could. be seen from Ex.P11, the
\nlist of trees and the value thereon has been
\nmentioned by the Deputy Conservator of Forest,<\/p>\n
Koppa Division. As could be seen from Ex.P11,<\/p>\n
<\u00b0v"\n<\/p>\n
these trees are Honne, Nandi and Surae Honne.
\nTherefore, the question is whether irthese<\/p>\n
trees are reserved teas or unreserved trees.<\/p>\n
There was no difficulty for the trig; \ufb01burt to”Q<\/p>\n
look into the definition clause Q\u00a7tS\ufb01bws\u00a7ction’<\/p>\n
(15) of Section–2 of the KarnatakaW#orest Acts
\n1963 which enumerates the nature of reserved
\ntrees. As Vcotld\ufb02ii$\u00e9;_nseen Hrrom thedbe
\ndefinitionf%\/thelreserred Ege\u00e9scflaimed by the<\/p>\n
defendant falls \ufb01nder the definition clause.
\nIf they are the reserved trees, then it is for<\/p>\n
 *plaintiV::EVf to establish how it is not<\/p>\n
r”liahle,to pay the value of the timber felled<\/p>\n
iVfsq\u00ab\u00a3ss;ssjit relates to Randi, Matti and Sura<\/p>\n
Honne are concerned. Since this point was not<\/p>\n
” considered as the trial court proceeded on the<\/p>\n
nioround based on Nandi, Honne and Sura Honne as<\/p>\n
i not reserved trees. The trial court has<\/p>\n
proceeded to decree the suit. Since the<\/p>\n
crucial point has not been considered, we are<\/p>\n
8’\/..\n<\/p>\n
show that the value claimed by thejdefende\ufb01ts<\/p>\n
was in respect of the reserved Atrees _\u00a2:}y<\/p>\n
unreserved trees relying uyon the definitedn<\/p>\n
of the reserved trees udder the gKernataka><\/p>\n
Forest Act 1963. In the circumstshces} parties<\/p>\n
to bear the costs:7_i<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court The State Of Karnataka By Its Chief … vs M\/S Mysore Plantation Ltd Quard … on 15 September, 2009 Author: K.L.Manjunath & B.V.Nagarathna IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BARGRLQRE DATED THIS THE 15″‘nAx or sEPTEMRER}jR\ufb01a\u00a7gv PRESERT THE HON’BLE MR.JUsTTcEyR}L}MAxJURRTRxyE THE HON’BLE Ms;JU$TIcE_R.v.RRGRRATHNA R.F.A.NoTi0b3.oE’2ob15 BETWEEN 1 THE STATE QRuKARNmjaK\u00e9”1R?R” BY IT3_\u20acHIEF […]<\/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-30945","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe State Of Karnataka By Its Chief ... vs M\/S Mysore Plantation Ltd Quard ... on 15 September, 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\/the-state-of-karnataka-by-its-chief-vs-ms-mysore-plantation-ltd-quard-on-15-september-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The State Of Karnataka By Its Chief ... vs M\/S Mysore Plantation Ltd Quard ... on 15 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-karnataka-by-its-chief-vs-ms-mysore-plantation-ltd-quard-on-15-september-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=\"2009-09-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-01-27T04:59:31+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\\\/the-state-of-karnataka-by-its-chief-vs-ms-mysore-plantation-ltd-quard-on-15-september-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-karnataka-by-its-chief-vs-ms-mysore-plantation-ltd-quard-on-15-september-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The State Of Karnataka By Its Chief … vs M\\\/S Mysore Plantation Ltd Quard … on 15 September, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-27T04:59:31+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-karnataka-by-its-chief-vs-ms-mysore-plantation-ltd-quard-on-15-september-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1598,\"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\\\/the-state-of-karnataka-by-its-chief-vs-ms-mysore-plantation-ltd-quard-on-15-september-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-karnataka-by-its-chief-vs-ms-mysore-plantation-ltd-quard-on-15-september-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-karnataka-by-its-chief-vs-ms-mysore-plantation-ltd-quard-on-15-september-2009\",\"name\":\"The State Of Karnataka By Its Chief ... vs M\\\/S Mysore Plantation Ltd Quard ... on 15 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-27T04:59:31+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-karnataka-by-its-chief-vs-ms-mysore-plantation-ltd-quard-on-15-september-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-karnataka-by-its-chief-vs-ms-mysore-plantation-ltd-quard-on-15-september-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-karnataka-by-its-chief-vs-ms-mysore-plantation-ltd-quard-on-15-september-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The State Of Karnataka By Its Chief … vs M\\\/S Mysore Plantation Ltd Quard … on 15 September, 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":"The State Of Karnataka By Its Chief ... vs M\/S Mysore Plantation Ltd Quard ... on 15 September, 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\/the-state-of-karnataka-by-its-chief-vs-ms-mysore-plantation-ltd-quard-on-15-september-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The State Of Karnataka By Its Chief ... vs M\/S Mysore Plantation Ltd Quard ... on 15 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-karnataka-by-its-chief-vs-ms-mysore-plantation-ltd-quard-on-15-september-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-09-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-01-27T04:59:31+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\/the-state-of-karnataka-by-its-chief-vs-ms-mysore-plantation-ltd-quard-on-15-september-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-karnataka-by-its-chief-vs-ms-mysore-plantation-ltd-quard-on-15-september-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The State Of Karnataka By Its Chief … vs M\/S Mysore Plantation Ltd Quard … on 15 September, 2009","datePublished":"2009-09-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-27T04:59:31+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-karnataka-by-its-chief-vs-ms-mysore-plantation-ltd-quard-on-15-september-2009"},"wordCount":1598,"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\/the-state-of-karnataka-by-its-chief-vs-ms-mysore-plantation-ltd-quard-on-15-september-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-karnataka-by-its-chief-vs-ms-mysore-plantation-ltd-quard-on-15-september-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-karnataka-by-its-chief-vs-ms-mysore-plantation-ltd-quard-on-15-september-2009","name":"The State Of Karnataka By Its Chief ... vs M\/S Mysore Plantation Ltd Quard ... on 15 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-09-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-27T04:59:31+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-karnataka-by-its-chief-vs-ms-mysore-plantation-ltd-quard-on-15-september-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-karnataka-by-its-chief-vs-ms-mysore-plantation-ltd-quard-on-15-september-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-karnataka-by-its-chief-vs-ms-mysore-plantation-ltd-quard-on-15-september-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The State Of Karnataka By Its Chief … vs M\/S Mysore Plantation Ltd Quard … on 15 September, 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\/30945","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=30945"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/30945\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=30945"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=30945"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=30945"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}