{"id":95338,"date":"2010-11-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-11-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-narasimha-prabhu-vs-karnataka-state-forest-on-30-november-2010"},"modified":"2015-10-18T10:06:37","modified_gmt":"2015-10-18T04:36:37","slug":"sri-narasimha-prabhu-vs-karnataka-state-forest-on-30-november-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-narasimha-prabhu-vs-karnataka-state-forest-on-30-november-2010","title":{"rendered":"Sri Narasimha Prabhu vs Karnataka State Forest on 30 November, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Sri Narasimha Prabhu vs Karnataka State Forest on 30 November, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: Ajit J B.V.Nagarathna<\/div>\n
IN THE HIGH COURT OF IQRRNATAKA AT BANGALOE'E:.\u00a7'E.\n\nDATED THIS THE) 30'!\" DAY OF NovEMBER.~~~2Q::Q__E-  \" \n\nPRESENT\n\nTHE HQNBLE MR. JUSTICE; AJ\ufb01\"J N.1AL_u   _ \n\nAND.\nTHE HONBLE MRS. JUs\"'I\"'iE4(:T}::.B.V.N'AQAR'A'rR;N}i'\n\nR.F.A\". ~ NO. 1.v6\"s3\/I2o O?_.\n\nBETWEEN:     '\n\nSRI NARASIMHA    \" \nPROPR1E'1'Q-R\",      \nM\/s.BHUM1ia:VA*wQV0 ' I1\"1DLisf1'R'IEs;;\nNIDDOIJY;    \n\nKARKALA 'I1ALUE:.1D;K.D1%sTV, _ _--  APPELLANT\n\n{BY EMT.sAN1jYA'UaRRABHU, ADV., FOR M\/S.ACC\nASSTS] E 4  \n\n \u00ab,1:IiARN:A'\u00a3TAj{}XE-S%l.7ATE FOREST\n\nINDUSTR'IEjS. C.O--OPERATION LTD,\nPADJL, MN.\\I'C;ALORE W 575 007.\n\n- V REP.\" BY\" ITS 'REGIONAL DIRECTOR.\n\n-    UNIVERSITY ENGINEERING-\n \"\u00ab.'D.[v1'S_ION,\n_  MANGALA GANGOTRI.\n \" MANGALORE TALUK W 574 199.\n -~RER.BY1Ts EXECUTIVE ENGINEER. .. ...RESPONDENTS<\/pre>\n
{BY SR1 S.B.PAVIN, ADV. F’OR R-1 AND SR1 EVI.I.ARUN’<\/p>\n
ADV. FOR R-2}<\/p>\n
$>’$>i<5.Wic<\/p>\n
 furn.it\u00a7ure*.for thelpast: several years and has gathered<\/p>\n
Ayreputatioily  said line. He was supplying such<\/p>\n
jpdefenudanta. .'xxThe specific case made out is that the
\n "..fdeier1\u00ab.dant Nol had placed Orders for supply of desks
\n sofa sets to the 2% defendant. In furtherance of the<\/p>\n
 same, the plaintiff supplied the same as per the Delivery<\/p>\n
, A <\/p>\n
THIS R.I%\u00ab'.A. IS FILED U \/s. 96 OF cpc AGAINS"l_"_._'i"HE
\nJUDGMENT AND DEGREE mix;\/2.2\/2006 PAssIi:Io.iy_:'i~1N
\no.s.NO.3\/2000 ON THE FILE OF THE 1
\nJUDGE [SR.DN.). MANGALORE, oIsMIssINo\u00abffr:–is;\n<\/p>\n
FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY.     ”\n<\/p>\n
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR I?f.I+:}IRINOAp”‘rHIs
\nAJIT J.GUNJAL J., DELIvERI<iI:;\u00ab\u00ab.frHE F=OLl,.OW'l:NG.:'-…
\nJunome\ufb01r t "Z'<\/p>\n
This appeal is byitlfie  suitdis filed for<\/p>\n
recovery ofj..I\u00abIIO:1ely…–';'–_V  -Judge has dismissed
\nthe suit. ——–    M<\/p>\n
2:;-._ thevv-.pi'aintiff is that he is doing<\/p>\n
business llma'n1ifaetu'f;ing and supplying wooden<\/p>\n
 to the 2"" defendant through the 18'<\/p>\n
Note dated 9\/6\/1999 and I0\/6\/I999 respectively. The<\/p>\n
said goods were acCe_pted. by the first deferidant. later<\/p>\n
 several request by the plaintiff.
\n not pay the amounts due. Hence,<\/p>\n
  the suit  for recovery of a sum of Rs.3,28.212\/A
\nthevalue of the goods supplied to the defendant<\/p>\n
'W
\n_ J M,<\/p>\n
they were sent to the second defendant. But however.
\nthe plaintiff received a notice from the first
\n17\/ 6\/ 1999 that 15 desks and 15 sofa sets  he
\nsupplied by him were not as per
\ndefective and not up to the standard__.
\nneither the first. defendant
\ngiven any valid reasons':'fo_r   rejection
\nof the goods  I defendant is
\narbitrary   'The plaintiff would
\nplead   accepted without
\nany objecuonsi llgto receive the value of the<\/p>\n
goods _si..1pplied..:as~f)er."-the accounts maintained by the<\/p>\n
3. In response to the service of SE,1fI1I’1’l0I1S. the
\ndefendant No.1. entered appearance and denied the case
\nof the plaintiff in its entirety.<\/p>\n
‘l V’   to help the plaintiff in the suit
\n plea is that the materials supplied<\/p>\n
 1 were.’ of”‘sd’|oLstandard and not according to the
\nspecifications and therefore, it was rejected by the
\n defendant. it is their case that they have
\nll  “repeatedly requested the plaintiff by series of letters<\/p>\n
9. commencing from 17\/6\/1999 to 16\/11\/1999 to take<\/p>\n
4 <\/span><\/p>\n
4. The primary contention of the first defendant is
\nthat there is no contractual relationship interse
\nthe plaintiff and the first defendant. It is  1,
\nthat the defendant has not placed–a1’1y.
\nwith the plaintiff for suppiy of desks
\nsupplied to the second defendant.  <\/p>\n
would however state has  them
\n15 desks and 15 sofa  the second
\ndefendant    note mentioned in
\nthe one of the subordinates
\nof the i.e., Shivanna, Deputy<\/p>\n
Manager: v\\7lho..:lconni\\fe.dl.yvith the plaintiff by misusing<\/p>\n
further steps, but it has not been done. They would<\/p>\n
4<\/span><\/p>\n
further plead that the first defendant: under took to
\ni7<\/p>\n
_._the t.r\u00a7jfnsactionl”betyyfeei1 plaintiff and defendant No.1<\/p>\n
 plead that they had placed an order on<\/p>\n
‘desi:slllland.16..’2ll sofa sets for the use of the University after
\n  the notice dated 17\/6\/1999. According to
\n ____”?then1, the first defendant had supplied desks and sofa<\/p>\n
llllfsets as per the supply orders. They would also<\/p>\n
{J7<\/p>\n
supply 62 sets of desks and sofa sets to the
\ndefendant as per the specifications. The  V’
\nsaid furniture was entrusted to:.i’vI’\/\u00bbs,pSer;en.all
\nChokkabettu, Suratkal W Mangalolfej
\nthe minimum price for the   is
\ntheir case that M\/s.Se*r.ena  llsupplied the
\nentire quantity to the  the entire
\namount due isgpiaidto    gigestion of the
\nfirst defendantll:s’a_>ifisiyi.ngithe  of the plaintiff does<\/p>\n
not arise.  V; _  _\n<\/p>\n
5. ‘:,V_The .sec:’.n.d”defen’dan1: has entered appearance<\/p>\n
and wou1d”‘-takeup_’a.l.c’on_tention that it is oblivious of<\/p>\n
the first defendant for supply of 62<\/p>\n
speci\ufb01cally contend that out of the entire supply.<\/p>\n
15 desks and 15 sofa  were found to the defect:ive
\n{<\/p>\n
,6,<\/p>\n
and not as per the specifications and hence. the sarne
\nwas rejected by the second defendant. and
\ninformed defendant No.1 by a letter dated  =
\nThey would also contend that; \u00bb-me. p  V’
\nthereafter replaced those 15
\nnew ones of good quality  sarne. ‘v.I_er_”e
\nand the entire amount,’ has””‘h’e.\u20acjftd”p_aid\ufb02to’~ the first<\/p>\n
defendant in full and fined   <\/p>\n
6. fIfh\u20ac:._1ea5r;ned   on the basis of the
\npleadings. has Vfra med _ “following issues:–<\/p>\n
1}””Whether’uV proves that the first
\ndefendant placed order for supply of
\nA deskstdand ‘sofa sets to the platnttff’?
\n   the 13′ defendant proves that the
\n .4’A,”_’znaete’rtals supplied by the ptainttff’ is without
\nA’ requisition?\n<\/p>\n
H  Whether the 15′ defendant proves that the<\/p>\n
materials were of substandard and not<\/p>\n
according to the specifications’?<\/p>\n
4} Whether the 2″ defendant’ proves that the
\nsuit is bad for nttsjotttder of party?<\/p>\n
5} V!\/hether the plaintiff’ is entitled to the suit
\nrelief as prayedjor?\n<\/p>\n
6} What decree or order?\n<\/p>\n
\ufb01e<\/p>\n
‘7
\nt<\/p>\n
7. During the course of trial, the plaintiff exarni__ned<\/p>\n
himself as P.W.l and Exs.P.1 to R11 are ma3″kedZn’_Fhe.,A’<\/p>\n
first. defendant was examined as D.W.1 and  ”<\/p>\n
13.6 were marked. The lear11e:d””trial  it<\/p>\n
regard to the evidence let in both  <\/p>\n
was of the View that. the plaintiff”has failed’
\nthe first defendant has ‘”p1,aCed”an’ for l5″deslks and
\n15 sofa sets   the remaining
\nissues, it  flound:l’that~..’f’thle ,ff1?st_r–,p:clefendarit. has proved
\nthat th;3″‘:fi’e:t;e{{i;t1s,l :f;g;1′;pfp11\u00a7d  plaintiff are without<\/p>\n
any requisition.’ _   l<\/p>\n
8.  appeal, Ms.Sandhya, learned<\/p>\n
\u00ab’V.,_eoun’sE;el:__appearihg…__fOr the appellant submitted by<\/p>\n
l.W,pla.le’ing on Ex.P.3 that the Office Manager<\/p>\n
actnigl on  of the Regional Manager had placed<\/p>\n
a.\/\/..,,p__f’.orders supply of 15 desks and 15 sofa sets both
\n   at Rs.3,03,900\/–. She would submit that
\nll”—-.ll:llpu\u00a7rsuant to the delivery note a_t EXs.P.4 and 5, the<\/p>\n
 goods were supplied to the first defendant. who in turn<\/p>\n
supplied it to the second defendant. Thus, she would<\/p>\n
submit that the material on record would clearly
\n3″\n<\/p>\n
24<\/span><\/p>\n
fl.\u00bb<\/p>\n
J<\/p>\n
‘ transactiondn   of supply of furniture’s is
\n..v..requvire.dv to do its-vtrarisactions under the Transparency<\/p>\n
 submits that in the absence of the<\/p>\n
 ‘.questionll’ofldefendant No.1 issuing a work order in
\n   of the plaintiff would not arise. He further
\n .._l”lSubrnits that the documents which are relied on by the<\/p>\n
 , Dplaintiff before the Courts below are concocted in as<\/p>\n
.g__<\/p>\n
disclose that pursuant to the order of conirnunication at
\nEx.P.3. the goods have been supplied. Thus’;
\nplaintiff is entitled to recover the amount dueg:  l l<\/p>\n
9. Mr.Pavin, learned counsel.’ a’.ppea1*i.ngl’ <\/p>\n
defendant No.1 submits   entire
\nmaterial, both oral  would
\nclearly indicate that their\ufb02epiutvl ‘Slhivanna had
\nno authority    of furniture.\n<\/p>\n
He subrnitsv   being a Government<\/p>\n
of Karnataka  which is involved in the<\/p>\n
plaintiff s A liaarlticipation in the tender process, the<\/p>\n
much as there were serious allegations against the
\nmanager and disciplinary proceedings were initiated<\/p>\n
and he has been ultimately disniissed froin  He W;<\/p>\n
 defeotzlye and theyhaye been suitably replaced. Hence,<\/p>\n
l.7_:lIl !’V[l13vClv]fVC’tJ.i11\u00a7L’aI1C\u20acS. the question of they being parties<\/p>\n
 I  lithe parties and having perused the documents
\nll”-.___”‘.”p1aVced on record, the point that arises for our<\/p>\n
 _ll;’\u00bbconsideraiiion_ is whether the learned trial Judge was<\/p>\n
too,<\/p>\n
has placed a copy of the article of charges leveled<\/p>\n
against the said delinquent official Vide Ex. ‘D–6’.\n<\/p>\n
10. lVlr.Arun_. learned counsel <\/p>\n
second defendant submits <\/p>\n
nothing to do with the transaction <\/p>\n
plaintiff and the first   no privity of
\ncontract. He further   defendant
\nhad placed    for supply of
\n62 desks entire lot was sent at
\ndifferent’   “submits that out of the<\/p>\n
entire lot,   sofa sets were found to be<\/p>\n
to ltheliproce-edirigs does can arise.<\/p>\n
ll’i}..l7I.~iailring heard the learned counsel appearing<\/p>\n
justified in dismissing the plaintiff suit’? <\/p>\n
I-Vi’g.l.d’efe’n’d:antf   a communication to the first
\n that the goods supplied are
\n _subA–s\u00abtan,dard7′ and the plaintiff is required to take
\n“step. However, the plaintiff has failed to do so.
\n also depose that the contractual obligation of<\/p>\n
if .:l_4:”s’u’pplying the goods i.e., 62 sets of desks and sofa sets<\/p>\n
as well as the delivery having been satisfactorily<\/p>\n
__ 11 <\/p>\n
agreement or the contract was interse between___the
\nplaintiff and the first defendant. Indeed, this
\nto the oral evidence on behalf of the defendant}  V’
\nthe Regional Manager of the first
\nas D.W.l and in the examination;’i’n\u00a7chiei},:A.Athe
\ndefendant would depose that–v:.c:lg:there’his.<\/p>\n
obligation whatsoeverVbetWeen”th:ern”‘iand the plaintiff.<\/p>\n
D.W.1 would   is with the
\nconnivance  .lfnl\u00e91:iv1bers of the office by
\nname    sofa sets have been
\nsuppliedvhto’-the’ under the alleged<\/p>\n
delivery, rioteu.” ._:lHeV.vwoiild’l:also depose that the second<\/p>\n
completed and have been supplied by M\/s.Serena<\/p>\n
Timbers of Surathkal and the account with them has \ufb02<\/p>\n
..v..undat\u00e9-3d and th’e._sa_id communication is signed by<\/p>\n
“–__Shviyanr1-a  “ag-a.i_nst whom. certain disciplinary<\/p>\n
 in his dismissal. Two more documents,
\n   and P5 are the delivery note. A perusal of the
\nl””i_.._lfsan%1e would indicate that the first lot furniture was<\/p>\n
 . Dsent under Ex.P.4, where 11 sets of teak wood desks<\/p>\n
already been settled. In the cross~examination, \\_z’xe_V
\nthat nothing is elicited which is
\ninterest of the first defendant. I_)..W_._  .,..
\nthat there are no documents to
\nthe tenders before issuing thel-wtark    <\/p>\n
13. This take t.o thell…doc’un1enta1’y. eyidence<\/p>\n
produced by the plainltilff defendant.<\/p>\n
Indeed the  the on which,
\nstrong re1_iyance._i’s  to show that the
\nwork order ‘lay the first defendant.<\/p>\n
Indeed, a  would disclose that it is<\/p>\n
proceeidingsfare initiated and we are informed, it has<\/p>\n
and 5 sets of sofa sets were sent on 10\/6\/1999 and<\/p>\n
under Ex.P.5_. 4\u00bb sets of teak wood desks and 10 sets of<\/p>\n
sofa sets were sc1’1t: on 9 \/ (65 \/ .1999. <\/p>\n
9  _  of the defendant Ex.D.3 is a<\/p>\n
9  _defen’d..ar1tf  M \/ s.Serena Timbers, Surathkal. A
\n ddofththe said work order would indicate that the
\n  required to be supplied in two consignments<\/p>\n
9  sets each and the first consignment should reach<\/p>\n
on 20\/2\/1999 a11d the second consigr1mer1.t should be<\/p>\n
15. The other documents which are
\navailabie by the plaintiff are the  9′
\nby defendant No.1 indicating that
\ntake back all the defective goods
\nthem. The first of the letter
\nthereafter, series of letters have’  ‘E’:xs.P.8
\nand 13.9, requesting   the goods.\n<\/p>\n
Indeed, the  so. Ex.P.11 is
\na letter dated  by the second
\ndefendant’  fle’f’\u00a7hdan’tVVVindicating that the 15
\ndesks and  “of”sub–standard and are not<\/p>\n
in conf_ormity’uwi_th’ the orders which are placed.<\/p>\n
  2\/ 2\/ 1999 placed by the first<\/p>\n
delivered on or before 15\/3\/1999. Indeed, in the case<\/p>\n
2<\/span><\/p>\n
\/\/f<\/p>\n
on hand, we notice that the g()()cls were accepted on ?%<\/p>\n
l’\ufb02.t”1′;eVfirsttitlefendantlhad not placed any order with the<\/p>\n
 to the various documents and the oral evidence<\/p>\n
* adr.’h,1ced”du1*ing the course of trial.<\/p>\n
9 ~\u00abl..:”\ufb011rniture, which is lying in the first defendants office.<\/p>\n
 Indeed we notice that by series of correspondence, the<\/p>\n
‘1 R\n<\/p>\n
4.’\/<\/p>\n
9\/6\/1999 and 10\/8\/I999 as per Ex P4 and P5, which
\nrun contrary to the work order placed by
\ndefendant with M\/s.Serena Timbers of Suratl’iliia’]:.’. V’
\ntakes us to the documents produced by
\nas Ex.D.6. No doubt, a
\nindicate that the particular   vve
\nare concerned is not  tik.-“a1~r:’i\u00a7<:1es of
\ncharges. Nevertheless,    from 1993
\nonwards, the  in identical
\nactivities H of  \u00bb  A lncolrporation on various
\noccasions   this would be a reflection
\non the –condu4ct._:of the rnanager. We are of the View that<\/p>\n
 of the goods more so, having regard<\/p>\n
 17. This takes us as to what happens to the<\/p>\n
first defendant had requested the plaintiff take delivery<\/p>\n
\/<\/p>\n
E<\/p>\n
of the goods which are lying in their office for over a Q<\/p>\n
V’  \u00ab ‘<\/p>\n
period of atleast ten years and the piaintiff <\/p>\n
chosen take back the furniture.\n<\/p>\n
18. Indeed, we permit
\nthe goods which are Iying\u00bbf’wf’th
\noffice. Having said so, we  ftewrfvithatiftlaere is
\nno merit in the  ‘appeal stands<\/p>\n
dismissed.    .  V<\/p>\n
19. As   the plaintiff to
\nretrieve the”‘geoetgi7f,__Vwf\u00a3’:ei1:f:”\ufb01fe  with the first<\/p>\n
defendant. NVo\u00aboo’sts.’  <\/p>\n
Sd\/3
\n3115.93<\/p>\n
3,3\/2.\n<\/p>\n
JUDGE<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Sri Narasimha Prabhu vs Karnataka State Forest on 30 November, 2010 Author: Ajit J B.V.Nagarathna IN THE HIGH COURT OF IQRRNATAKA AT BANGALOE’E:.\u00a7’E. DATED THIS THE) 30′!” DAY OF NovEMBER.~~~2Q::Q__E- ” PRESENT THE HQNBLE MR. JUSTICE; AJ\ufb01”J N.1AL_u _ AND. THE HONBLE MRS. JUs”‘I”‘iE4(:T}::.B.V.N’AQAR’A’rR;N}i’ R.F.A”. ~ NO. 1.v6″s3\/I2o O?_. BETWEEN: ‘ SRI […]<\/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-95338","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSri Narasimha Prabhu vs Karnataka State Forest on 30 November, 2010 - 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\/sri-narasimha-prabhu-vs-karnataka-state-forest-on-30-november-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sri Narasimha Prabhu vs Karnataka State Forest on 30 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-narasimha-prabhu-vs-karnataka-state-forest-on-30-november-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-11-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-10-18T04:36:37+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-narasimha-prabhu-vs-karnataka-state-forest-on-30-november-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-narasimha-prabhu-vs-karnataka-state-forest-on-30-november-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sri Narasimha Prabhu vs Karnataka State Forest on 30 November, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-18T04:36:37+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-narasimha-prabhu-vs-karnataka-state-forest-on-30-november-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2107,\"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\\\/sri-narasimha-prabhu-vs-karnataka-state-forest-on-30-november-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-narasimha-prabhu-vs-karnataka-state-forest-on-30-november-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-narasimha-prabhu-vs-karnataka-state-forest-on-30-november-2010\",\"name\":\"Sri Narasimha Prabhu vs Karnataka State Forest on 30 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-18T04:36:37+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-narasimha-prabhu-vs-karnataka-state-forest-on-30-november-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-narasimha-prabhu-vs-karnataka-state-forest-on-30-november-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-narasimha-prabhu-vs-karnataka-state-forest-on-30-november-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sri Narasimha Prabhu vs Karnataka State Forest on 30 November, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Sri Narasimha Prabhu vs Karnataka State Forest on 30 November, 2010 - 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\/sri-narasimha-prabhu-vs-karnataka-state-forest-on-30-november-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sri Narasimha Prabhu vs Karnataka State Forest on 30 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-narasimha-prabhu-vs-karnataka-state-forest-on-30-november-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-11-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-10-18T04:36:37+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-narasimha-prabhu-vs-karnataka-state-forest-on-30-november-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-narasimha-prabhu-vs-karnataka-state-forest-on-30-november-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sri Narasimha Prabhu vs Karnataka State Forest on 30 November, 2010","datePublished":"2010-11-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-18T04:36:37+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-narasimha-prabhu-vs-karnataka-state-forest-on-30-november-2010"},"wordCount":2107,"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\/sri-narasimha-prabhu-vs-karnataka-state-forest-on-30-november-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-narasimha-prabhu-vs-karnataka-state-forest-on-30-november-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-narasimha-prabhu-vs-karnataka-state-forest-on-30-november-2010","name":"Sri Narasimha Prabhu vs Karnataka State Forest on 30 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-11-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-18T04:36:37+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-narasimha-prabhu-vs-karnataka-state-forest-on-30-november-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-narasimha-prabhu-vs-karnataka-state-forest-on-30-november-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-narasimha-prabhu-vs-karnataka-state-forest-on-30-november-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sri Narasimha Prabhu vs Karnataka State Forest on 30 November, 2010"}]},{"@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\/95338","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=95338"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/95338\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=95338"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=95338"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=95338"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}