{"id":7021,"date":"2009-07-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-07-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-r-c-india-vs-state-of-karnataka-commerce-on-15-july-2009"},"modified":"2016-09-06T12:44:47","modified_gmt":"2016-09-06T07:14:47","slug":"ms-r-c-india-vs-state-of-karnataka-commerce-on-15-july-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-r-c-india-vs-state-of-karnataka-commerce-on-15-july-2009","title":{"rendered":"M\/S R C India vs State Of Karnataka Commerce & … on 15 July, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
M\/S R C India vs State Of Karnataka Commerce & … on 15 July, 2009<\/div>\n
Author: P.D.Dinakaran(Cj) & V.G.Sabhahit<\/div>\n
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE\n\nDATED 11415 THE 15*\" DAY OF 3uLv 2999 \n\nPRESENT\n\nTHE HON'BLE MR. 9.0. DINAKARAAN, CHIEF*v\u00a3!..'l:JjS1\"'1VIV..C'EE,V _:\"  \n\nAND\n\nTHE I-!ON'BLE MR.3usTicE v.\u00e9;eaSA3HAm;Ta.rvEV 5;\n\nway APPEAL NO.339 _V(GxM--.-.~J:I_:I~\u00bbI'-s):\nBetween: '    -. , \n\nIVE\/s. R.C.India ,  'V A\nNo.1277, 1\" phase I\n\n8\"' cross,\nJ.P.Nagar\n\nBangalore  2 _ \nRepresentegi by-its'   b   ' -\nPartner Sri NijaI.ingeg0'wdaE'   ....Appe|fant\n\n(By Sri Ma r_1jur1at~h VK.VV.',-. Atmjc\u00e9te)\n\n         \n\n1'.-.S'ta.t'e of 'i<Zarr1ata'i<a\nC'QrT'}.FT!E\u00a7F\u20acvF\u00a7"-8; In\ufb01tjstries Department,\nM.S..B'ui\u00a3ding7,f_ \nDr.A'mberjk'a-r\u00ab~Road,\nTBangaIo.re=._560 G01.\n\n Represented by its\n- _ v~Secre'i:ary to Government,\n_' ._SS_I Mines 8: Geotogy.\n\n\n\n2. The Director\n\nDepartment of Mines & Geology,\nGovernment of Karnataka\nKhanija Bhavana\n\nNo.49, Race Course Road,\nBangalore 560 001.\n\n3. Ms.8apuji (SC) Gramdodyoga\nKaigarika Sahakara Sangha Ltd.\nNo.2203\/192,\n\nMedar's Block,\n\nMandi Mohalli, Mysore\nRepresented by its     \nPresident.   '.--.._Resp.ondents\n\n(By Sri Basavaraj Karreddy,'   Sri S.Shekar\nShetty, Advocate for.R3)  --  V \n\nThis:'i'Writ'--.\u00e9\u00a7ppea}Vi"' iiS'~..VVfiied\u00e9idund\u00e9er Section 4 of the\nKarnataka  to set~aside the order\npassed in the"V.\\.iVritv Petit'ioi:.. ':NQ's'..21821\/2004 and 21053\/2004\ndated 1o..o1..A2oo7.t_,V%W " \n\n  wrist..t_appe'ai~~e~\u00abrning up for final disposal this day,\nSABlj!'AHI'!'_v3~.%,*deiiv'ered the fo||owing:-\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
This appeal is filed by the petitioner in <\/p>\n
No.21821\/2004 being aggrieved by the order .o_f””‘th’ev<\/p>\n
Single Judge dated 10″‘ January 20Ci7WVdec!1_n’itng-:’t-o:_”itn_teVrfere7<\/p>\n
with the order dated 14″‘ May 2064  <\/p>\n
respondent cancelling the lease  in”  writ
\npetitioner–appellant hereiri and ‘.idi’re’cti’n:C\u00a7”‘i’-thatlAainotification
\nshall be issued under Rule  Minor Mineral
\nConcession Rules,   that if such
\nnotification is   petitioner to make an
\nappEication:’ifo’r’grant  \u00e9theauthority shall entertain
\nthe applicat.ion.’.  of the said notification<\/p>\n
issued under Ru’:-eV’8~–.A’;of”t_he’~”l{MMC Rules and consider those<\/p>\n
,applAicai”:i_o:nsy_’–.tin eii_accord’a’nce with Rule 11 and dispose of the<\/p>\n
same’-on”me~rjts..an_d”–i.n accordance with law.<\/p>\n
23;.  appellant herein filed Writ Petition<\/p>\n
it”gf7:\u00a7ie,V218.21\/20o4 being aggrieved by the order dated 14″‘ May<\/p>\n
 2’Q~__04._VVp’a’ssed by the first respondent–St:ate of Karnataka,<\/p>\n
\\,.J><\/p>\n
4<\/span><\/p>\n
Commerce & Industries Department, represented by its<\/p>\n
Secretary to Government, SS1 Mines 8: Geology.<\/p>\n
2.2. It is averred in the petition that the petitionerf”,–is”‘a,<\/p>\n
small scale industry having its industry at <\/p>\n
Somanahalli Industriai Area, Madciur.:i’or–.,Gra’_nite”‘pwrocessiyng, it<\/p>\n
and polishing industry and having   <\/p>\n
issued by the Industries and  De’palrtm’e,n’t’;’~ “The ” ‘<\/p>\n
petitioner made an application fo,r——grant*~-.of quarryingi licence
\nat Sy.No.1, Block No.235 of’Punjan,tfi’rjvil’lavge,:Chamarajanagar
\nTaluk and Districtvtoian e:;<tVe'nt':oifvv'VThe petitioner's
\naPl3lication'l"vva's bv\u00ab"_"Vt'\u00a7'ie4 first respondent by
\nfoilowing theprocedure_'co.nte.nteplated under the Karnataka<\/p>\n
Minor Mineral lCon'cess–ioAn-._'R'ules, 1994 (for short hereinafter<\/p>\n
,\\.i-refeyrrediogas '?_iAthe 3″; respondent\u00bb
\nM\/s,BG\u00a7<sS.:;   3 and further, held that
\nnotification   under Rule 8-A of the
\nKMMC Rtiyyllelsayfor conslderatiion of grant of quarrying lease and
\n  and the 3"' respondent–M\/s.BGKSSE.\n<\/p>\n
are their applications for consideration of<\/p>\n
 grant of”‘c1_ua*–rn\/ing lease.\n<\/p>\n
  being aggrieved by the said order dated 14″‘ May<\/p>\n
 2’_Q'{)4v-rpasseci by the 1″ respondent, Writ petition<\/p>\n
‘<31'<\/p>\n
No.21821\/2004 was filed by the petitioner–appei|ant herein<\/p>\n
seeking quashing of the said order contending that'-.gno<\/p>\n
notification was required under Rule 8-13. of the  <\/p>\n
the iand was available for grant of quarrying _and'~..th'e_retore,'at<\/p>\n
the order passed by the 15' responcientiiis:iiiiegal  'is<\/p>\n
to be set-aside. V\u00bb _4 A. 1 V 1
\n2.5. The said writ petition Na. ;ia2i;2go4wattiiiibbed<\/p>\n
with Writ Petition No.21o5.3,*2po4=wihiittiviia.sygrii\u00e9aiby third<\/p>\n
respondent in Writ Petitiofj '– i.e. by<\/p>\n
M\/s.BGi<SSL chaiiyesi-ig..iVij1g the vet; saxrn1e_"–ordVe'ridated 14"' May<\/p>\n
2004 passe'di"'byaA.:t1ne aggrieved by the"<\/p>\n
finding thatythe' reinewaiil'v4..aip..o|ti.cation of the said society<\/p>\n
M\/s.BGKSVS_E. was\u00bbnotpendingfonsideration.<\/p>\n
  The iearne'd"Si'n'g|e Judge after hearing the learned<\/p>\n
Sentii_or\u00bbv4a;a;bejaring for the petitioner in both the writ<\/p>\n
— Vr\/.,,..\u00abpetitiorisywand.  ‘iearned Government Pieader appearing for<\/p>\n
–.]”_j’jg.-respondentajii and 2 and the learned Senior counsei<\/p>\n
for the contesting respondent, by order dated 10″‘<\/p>\n
.  Ja\u00e9nuary 2007, heid that the iease granted in favour of the writ<\/p>\n
K3<\/p>\n
petitioner—-the appellant herein was not valid as the same had<\/p>\n
not been passed after issuing notification under Rule 8.-~;4\\> of<\/p>\n
the KMMC Rules and therefore, the impugned order<\/p>\n
the 1″ respondent cancelling the lease in  <\/p>\n
petitioner granted on 03.09.2001, wa-sj’u’stif\u00a7e-d analeaeainieaii,<\/p>\n
to interfere with the said order and <\/p>\n
order passed by the 15′ respo:n”dent,.V’ w.herejivn,R”‘:vvgthe1″ it<\/p>\n
respondent had ordered to issue gno’tifi:\u00a7Catit:e.n’ und\u00e9er’iRu’e 8–A of
\nthe KMMC Rules. The learned’  also permitted
\nboth the petitionertjarnd  in the writ
\npetition, who is;aloofiiiiti’t_oetiiti.o’negr’ij iniiw..d:>.No.21053\/2004, to
\nmake application AVpu”i’sti_:a’iw_t’to:’th_enotification to be issued and<\/p>\n
directed therespondent\u00e9autiiority to consider the same in<\/p>\n
avccordagnee with Rziiedi of: KMMC Rules.<\/p>\n
 Be_iVng”l’ag’g.rieved by the said order of the learned<\/p>\n
ll”\u00bb..,.v.Single’J__udge_  10″‘ January 2007, the petitioner in Writ<\/p>\n
–e_l.i’_j;P,etition No*._2u_\u00a7:.821\/2004 has preferred this writ appeal.<\/p>\n
\\.3<\/p>\n
3. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the<\/p>\n
appellant and the learned Government Pieader appeavri.n’g_:’_foVr<\/p>\n
respondents-1 and 2 and the learned counsel <\/p>\n
the 3′” respondent.\n<\/p>\n
4. The learned counsel appearingfor <\/p>\n
submitted that there was no nece’ssVi’ty for not\u00e9iviiiealtion
\nunder Rule 8-A of the Ki\\iM.(; Rull’es”.Va’shtgheA.leasegranted in
\nfavour of the third respondent’_in’jthe  has been
\nquashed by the P.G.R.Sindhia’s
\ncase and when   for quarrying, no
\nnotificationowasiiregulired  the learned Single
\nJudge oughttto_  petition and was not<\/p>\n
justified in uph’olc;l’in.gV’;.the_l lrapugned order dated 14″‘ May<\/p>\n
,f2VGD_4 p\u00e9\u00a7’se;_;ii.:b\\,<\/p>\n
10<\/span><\/p>\n
cancellation of lease in favour of the petitioner-appellant was<\/p>\n
justified.\n<\/p>\n
6. The learned counsel appearing for the 3″‘ respondent<\/p>\n
submitted that the learned Single Judge was not__ju’sti\u00abfi_e’d__V5:n:1<\/p>\n
upholding the finding that notification has to ” -\u00bb. <\/p>\n
Rule 8-A of the KMMC Rules.\n<\/p>\n
7. We have given our careful ‘con’siderati-end’: to fthe <\/p>\n
contentions of the learned counse’ll’*a:ppearing.foirijtheg parties
\nand scrutinised the materialon re.5_cord,l”   A<\/p>\n
8. The  grecfora would clearly show that the
\n3?” respondenrtgjfhereir\ufb01  admittedly was granted<\/p>\n
quarryingfleasef  for a period of five years from<\/p>\n
the 3′” respondent had filed application for<\/p>\n
renewa-l’.__of ~gra’nted on 16.3.1978. However, in view of<\/p>\n
 the am\u00e9ndm:ent’:””to the provisions of Rule 3(A) of the KMMC<\/p>\n
 Rules, 1969 denying quarrying of Black Granite<\/p>\n
 to-__ah.y”persons other than public sector enterprise, the lease<\/p>\n
if granted in favour of M\/s.BGKSSL was cancelled. However, the<\/p>\n
k\ufb01i}<\/p>\n
11<\/span><\/p>\n
said Rule was struck down as unconstitutional in Writ Petition<\/p>\n
No.10224\/1991 and thereafter, lease was granted in respect<\/p>\n
of Black Granite and accordingly, IVE\/s.BGKSSL alsoygginadej-.a’n.,<\/p>\n
application for grant of mining lease and the same \\rvas”s-alllso\ufb02 it<\/p>\n
granted. However, all the 203 leases~g’rante&d7__weVrei’lsetaasildeg<\/p>\n
bv the Hon’ble Supreme Court in  case”\n<\/p>\n
consequently, the lease grantedVirmjfas\/,our.V’of.. also it<\/p>\n
stood set–aside. The 1″Vrespond-e’ri:t,e_:”lafter thileinatvter was
\nremitted by this Court in   heard
\nthe learned counsei.fpr_thegpetit:ione’r~?.a:n_d:v’th\u00a7eVv’Vl’earned counsel
\nfor the 3″   of Mines and Geology
\nand passeda _deta’jiil”ed.._forderl_\u00abd.ated-‘ 14″‘ May 2004, which was
\nimpugned  the learned Single Judge<\/p>\n
has cIea_;r|ys..held as the land in respect of which<\/p>\n
:’a.ppl’icat_.iori_:’wasA”\u00a7iVled by the writ petitioner was held by<\/p>\n
M\/sl,”BG’KSi5lL,Tthye would not become available for grant,<\/p>\n
 unless n”otif5–.cat’io’n is issued under Rule 8~–A of KMMC Rules as<\/p>\n
 was previously held by M\/s.BGKSSL and therefore,<\/p>\n
 tl,heg.ra’nt”of lease in favour of the petitioner~appeilant was not<\/p>\n
it \u00a7us’ti\ufb01’ed and negatived the contention of the learned counsel<\/p>\n
\\9<\/'1<\/p>\n
12<\/span><\/p>\n
for the appellant that no notification was required to be issued<\/p>\n
under Rule 8–A of the KMMC Rules.\n<\/p>\n
9. In Writ Petition No.927’6\/2008, this Division<j'Be_'i1cl1,,,<<\/p>\n
by a detailed order dated 30"' March 2009, has  R'<\/p>\n
provisions of Rule 8-A, 8A(1), 8-B, 9,.1~1v and  Rx<\/p>\n
Rules and has held that the State <\/p>\n
notify in the official gazette as availaclil,iAty.: o'i?,Vl'a'r*i'd"jfor " V<\/p>\n
grant and merely the areas no-tifi:c'ati'o~n_ mentioned under
\nRules 8–A (1) (a) (b) and (c')'l'o'f  Rules is notified, it
\ndoes not automatic:a:l'l'-,I._'me_aVn':'tii:at ,:'L'l'1.\u00e9.,I':Ell'l(Il':3:, fvvhich were not<\/p>\n
governed underixRu"i.es_::'8~A'~{ii')..__(a) (b) and (c) of the KMMC<\/p>\n
Rules need notlble notif'i'ed ..fo'r.i,grant in the official gazette and<\/p>\n
therefore,' the app'i'icatiVon for grant of quarry lease of area not<\/p>\n
V"notifIedW'as'.Aav,ailable for lease can still be rejected as<\/p>\n
premat-ure "an'd.,_it'isnecessary to issue notification under Rule<\/p>\n
 R8-;-A of the  Rules. In the said judgment, it is held thus:<\/p>\n
A   The combined reading of Rules 8-A, 8\u00bb<\/p>\n
 H9, 11 and 12 of the KMMC Rules, makes it<\/p>\n
'"\u00b0clear that said provisions provide for<\/p>\n
\\9l\/Q<\/p>\n
13<\/span><\/p>\n
transparency in the matter of grant of quarry
\nlease, affording an opportunity to all the<\/p>\n
Dersons interested to make applications. <\/p>\n
other interpretation to mean that no notifica_t–ibn’ *’ <\/p>\n
is required for the grant of virgin quarry,_..’.Mo_:u~3.dV <\/p>\n
only lead to unreasonable and a9*bitrai”,’._e\u00abxerci–se\u00ab_ <\/p>\n
of power attracting Article 14 of the :C_o’nstiltutfi’on, , ” <\/p>\n
of India, and therefore tlheksamlev. has  <\/p>\n
discouraged, because it would-._be _difficu|t\ufb02for a,<\/p>\n
person interested to ‘rave ‘know-ledge._,as tolthex
\navailability of land forugra’nt”of,\u00a7’t’leaseawi.th’out any
\nnoti\ufb01cation, unlevss siuth..i:nteI’ested’V’_pe”rso’n has
\nlinks with   .ha~\u00a7\u00a7*~-gources to
\nacquire the  . “‘E?)\u00a7ce’pt”:,,\u00abwii_ere the State<\/p>\n
proposeultoi’ the:’_’vappi_ica’tions on priority
\nprescribed_  (i) to (vi), in all
\nother circL_;rnsta’n.ce’s,” where the selection
\nofgggthe. appli.c_ations’ fall under ‘all others’<\/p>\n
 ‘ca”\u00a3\u00e9QCi’r’y “a.ttracting”Rule 12(1) (vi), the only<\/p>\n
‘ .’reason.abl\u00e9’i’\u00a7’p’tion would be to notify the area<\/p>\n
if’av’ai’lavbI’e7j:..fo:r” public auction for want of<\/p>\n
gu’:’–delE.nes”‘in the Rules to give priority among<\/p>\n
 fall others’. The power conferred under rule 8–B<\/p>\n
A  .ofl”t~he Rules has to be exercised with the close<\/p>\n
cpro\ufb02ximity to the desired public interest to<\/p>\n
 ” -“augment more revenue to the State. Therefore,<\/p>\n
\\\\),t.\/\u00b0><\/p>\n
14<\/span><\/p>\n
the contention advanced on behalf of the 9″‘
\nrespondent and the lease granting authorit\\,.>’_”‘~\u00abi:’_”‘– A’
\nthat only in the case of Rule 8–A(1) (a), (b)’_.a;n’d’  ‘\n<\/p>\n
(c), the Government is required to.t._,ivss.uVe:.A.:’ <\/p>\n
notification regarding availability””of.th’e areas  in<\/p>\n
and that the lands which are notco’vered<\u00b0und.egr   <\/p>\n
Rule 8-A(1) (a), (b) and (cf)-are thevirgint.I\u00a7jn..d's._i_H Q?<\/p>\n
and such virgin lands are'"available'"fongrant<\/p>\n
without notification, ouri'c'uns_side'red opir1'ion',<\/p>\n
is nothing but  2'ill.ogic'a_lV and<\/p>\n
irrational."   '   <\/p>\n
10. In View pri’nci,ol:es:.i’laAid ‘down by this Division
\nBench in  to above, and having
\nregard to th-effects’and_ijV*circ~un1\u00abst’ances of the case, it is clear<\/p>\n
that thegthere is  the contention of the learned<\/p>\n
nseiffortheuappelllavntithat no notification is required to be<\/p>\n
issued__u’hder..,i\u00a7dlie.35A of the KMMC Rules and the impugned<\/p>\n
L V”-~t’\u00bborder’Ap.aVssed.–ijv’the 15’ respondent dated 3.4.5.2004 was<\/p>\n
-\u00ab.c’.jjv\u00bb-vT\u00a7g’Jl’i-UV upheld? by the learned Single Judge and therefore, the<\/p>\n
s~agi’dV’.”o~rd’e}’ of the learned Single Judge does not suffer from<\/p>\n
 antyheirror or irreguiarity as to call for interference in this<\/p>\n
KM<\/p>\n
15<\/span><\/p>\n
intra court appeal. Accordingly, we hold that there is no
\nmerit in this appeal and pass the foiiowing:<\/p>\n
ORDER<\/p>\n
E<\/p>\n
The writ appeal is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
‘ffilliei l3’1I.1$’l~’1V’3%9fF’  <\/p>\n
Index:  \\ A
\nswab h0St: Xe?\/No      <\/p>\n
1’a_ l <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court M\/S R C India vs State Of Karnataka Commerce & … on 15 July, 2009 Author: P.D.Dinakaran(Cj) & V.G.Sabhahit IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED 11415 THE 15*” DAY OF 3uLv 2999 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. 9.0. DINAKARAAN, CHIEF*v\u00a3!..’l:JjS1″‘1VIV..C’EE,V _:” AND THE I-!ON’BLE MR.3usTicE v.\u00e9;eaSA3HAm;Ta.rvEV 5; way APPEAL NO.339 […]<\/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-7021","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM\/S R C India vs State Of Karnataka Commerce & ... on 15 July, 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\/ms-r-c-india-vs-state-of-karnataka-commerce-on-15-july-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S R C India vs State Of Karnataka Commerce & ... on 15 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-r-c-india-vs-state-of-karnataka-commerce-on-15-july-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=\"2009-07-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-09-06T07:14:47+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-r-c-india-vs-state-of-karnataka-commerce-on-15-july-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-r-c-india-vs-state-of-karnataka-commerce-on-15-july-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S R C India vs State Of Karnataka Commerce & … on 15 July, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-06T07:14:47+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-r-c-india-vs-state-of-karnataka-commerce-on-15-july-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1914,\"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\\\/ms-r-c-india-vs-state-of-karnataka-commerce-on-15-july-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-r-c-india-vs-state-of-karnataka-commerce-on-15-july-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-r-c-india-vs-state-of-karnataka-commerce-on-15-july-2009\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S R C India vs State Of Karnataka Commerce & ... on 15 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-06T07:14:47+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-r-c-india-vs-state-of-karnataka-commerce-on-15-july-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-r-c-india-vs-state-of-karnataka-commerce-on-15-july-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-r-c-india-vs-state-of-karnataka-commerce-on-15-july-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\\\/S R C India vs State Of Karnataka Commerce & … on 15 July, 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":"M\/S R C India vs State Of Karnataka Commerce & ... on 15 July, 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\/ms-r-c-india-vs-state-of-karnataka-commerce-on-15-july-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S R C India vs State Of Karnataka Commerce & ... on 15 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-r-c-india-vs-state-of-karnataka-commerce-on-15-july-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-07-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-09-06T07:14:47+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-r-c-india-vs-state-of-karnataka-commerce-on-15-july-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-r-c-india-vs-state-of-karnataka-commerce-on-15-july-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S R C India vs State Of Karnataka Commerce & … on 15 July, 2009","datePublished":"2009-07-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-06T07:14:47+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-r-c-india-vs-state-of-karnataka-commerce-on-15-july-2009"},"wordCount":1914,"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\/ms-r-c-india-vs-state-of-karnataka-commerce-on-15-july-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-r-c-india-vs-state-of-karnataka-commerce-on-15-july-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-r-c-india-vs-state-of-karnataka-commerce-on-15-july-2009","name":"M\/S R C India vs State Of Karnataka Commerce & ... on 15 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-07-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-06T07:14:47+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-r-c-india-vs-state-of-karnataka-commerce-on-15-july-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-r-c-india-vs-state-of-karnataka-commerce-on-15-july-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-r-c-india-vs-state-of-karnataka-commerce-on-15-july-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S R C India vs State Of Karnataka Commerce & … on 15 July, 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\/7021","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=7021"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7021\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7021"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7021"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7021"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}