Bangalore District Court
Sri.Lokeshwara vs Sri.Pran Nath on 23 January, 2020
IN THE COURT OF XIII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU.
:: PRESENT ::
SRI. NAGARAJEGOWDA. D. B.Com, L.L.B.,
XIII A.C.M.M. Bengaluru.
C.C. NO.3641/2017
Dated: This the 23rd day of JANUARY-2020
COMPLAINANT/S: Sri.Lokeshwara,
S/o.A.Thirumala Naidu
Aged about 62 years
R/at.No.2884, 14th Main,
E Block, 2nd Stage, Rajajinagar,
Bengaluru-560010.
ACCUSED: 1. Sri.Pran Nath
S/o.Late Dhannu Ram
Aged about 63 years
R/at.No.402, Aurora Orchids,
3rd A Main, Balaji Layout,
Vidyaranyapura,
Bengaluru-560097.
2. Sri.Sumit Arora
S/o. Prananath
Aged about 36 years
R/at.No.402, Aurora Orchids,
3rd A Main, Balaji Layout,
Vidyaranyapura,
Bengaluru-560097.
JUDGMENT 2 C.C.3641/2017
Offence Under Section.138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act. years
Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty
Final order Acquitted
**
:: JUDGEMENT ::
The complainant filed the private complaint under Section.200 of Cr.P.C alleging that, the accused person have committed an offence punishable under Section.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. The brief facts of the complainant case as per Ex.P23 complaint reads as follows:
The complainant was the absolute owner in possession of site No.11, khata No.310, measuring east to west(161+28)/2 and north to south (193+138)/2 situated at Lakshmipura Village, Yeshwanthpura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru. On 24.02.2016 the complainant executed a sale deed in favour of the accused conveying the aforementioned property in favour of Sri.Pran Nath and Sri.Sumit Arora i.e. the accused jointly in favour of the accused for total sale consideration amount of Rs.1,77,00,000/- and the same is registered before the Sub JUDGMENT 3 C.C.3641/2017 Registrar, Madanayakanahalli on 24.02.2016 and the accused jointly have paid the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- by way of cash and they have issued 10 cheques towards sale consideration. 10 cheques under the sale deed dated 24.02.2016 are detailed below:
Sl. Cheque Dated Amount Drawn Branch Issued No. Nos. on by 1 174437 24.02.2016 32,50,000/- ICICI Malleshwaram Accused Bank Bengaluru No.2 2 000212 24.02.2016 32,50,000/- HDFC Vidyaranyapura, Accused Bank Bengaluru No.1 3 000216 31.03.2016 20,00,000/- HDFC Vidyaranyapura, Accused Bank Bengaluru No.1 4 174438 10.07.2016 20,00,000/- ICICI Malleshwaram, Accused Bank Bengaluru No.2 5 174439 10.09.2016 13,50,000/- ICICI Malleshwaram, Accused Bank Bengaluru No.2 6 174440 10.09.2016 10,00,000/- ICICI Malleshwaram, Accused Bank Bengaluru No.2 7 174441 10.09.2016 10,00,000/- ICICI Malleshwaram, Accused Bank Bengaluru No.2 8 000217 10.09.2016 13,50,000/- HDFC Vidyaranyapura, Accused Bank Bengaluru No.1 9 000218 10.09.2016 10,00,000/- HDFC Vidyaranyapura, Accused Bank Bengaluru No.1 10 000219 10.09.2016 10,00,000/- HDFC Vidyaranyapura, Accused Bank Bengaluru No.1 After execution of sale deed, cheques detailed below on presentation they were enchased:
Sl. Cheque Dated Amount Drawn Branch
No. Nos. on
1 174437 24.02.2016 32,50,000/- ICICI Malleshwaram,
Bank Bengaluru
2 000212 24.02.2016 32,50,000/- HDFC Vidyaranyapura,
Bank Bengaluru
3 000216 31.03.2016 20,00,000/- HDFC Vidyaranyapura,
Bank Bengaluru
4 174438 10.07.2016 20,00,000/- ICICI Malleshwaram,
Bank Bengaluru
JUDGMENT 4 C.C.3641/2017
3. As regard the other 6 cheques are concerned, i.e. cheques Nos.174439, 174440, 174441, 000217, 000218 and 000219 are the due date for presentation was on 10.09.2016. During the interregnum, the accused with a deceitful intention on 02.09.2016, has caused a letter to complainant stating that on 04.05.2016 the National Green Tribunal has passed a judgment as regards creation of buffer zone with respect to Rajakaluve. It is submitted that, it is the contention of the accused under the letter dated 02.09.2016 that site No.11 is close by to Rajakaluve and utilization of the said property is difficult and by stating that the accused have informed the complainant that they are unable to arrange funds to clear the balance post dated cheques amounting to Rs.67,00,000/- which were handed over to the complainant on the date of registration of the sale deed dated 24.02.2016 and by virtue of the said letter dated 02.09.2016. The accused have called upon the complainant to refund the entire amount received by the complainant under sale deed dated 24.02.2016 i.e. sum of Rs.1,10,00,000/- with 45,00,000/- paid by them in cash.JUDGMENT 5 C.C.3641/2017
with interest at the rate of 24% amounting to Rs.18,60,000/- including stamp duty and registration charges for a sum of Rs.11,77,050/- so also the TDS(Tax Deduction at Source) amounting for a sum of Rs.88,500/- cancellation charges paid in respect of site No.12 amounting of a sum of Rs.65,000/- and further damages amounting to Rs.20,00,000/- in all a total sum of Rs.2,06,90,550/- and also has informed the complainant not to present the six postdated cheques dated 10.09.2016 since the sale deed dated 24.02.2016 one executed by the complainant has become infructuous in view of the National Green Tribunal order(sic), with a sole intention to deceit the complainant of the remaining sale consideration. The complainant after receiving the said letter dated 02.09.2016 issued by the accused, immediately contacted both of them and appraised the fact that there is no title dispute with regard to the property in question. As such, NGT order is concerned which is an a event subsequent to sale deed 24.2.2016, for which the complainant is in no way concerned or connected in any manner and as such there is no impediment to receive the balance sale JUDGMENT 6 C.C.3641/2017 consideration amounting to Rs.67,00,000/- as agreed and covered under 6 cheques dated 10.09.2016 stating this complainant stated that he is entitle to receive balance sale consideration amount. After due deliberation, both the accused have informed the complainant to present the cheques dated 10.09.2016 on its due date and they assured that the cheques on presentation would be honoured and encashed. Accordingly the complainant on its due date presented all the 6 cheques for encashment. The details of the cheques are detailed below:
Sl. Cheque Dated Amount Drawn Branch
No. Nos. on
1 174439 10.09.2016 13,50,000/- ICICI Malleshwaram
Bank Bengaluru
2 174440 10.09.2016 10,00,000/- ICICI Malleshwaram
Bank Bengaluru
3 174441 10.09.2016 10,00,000/- ICICI Malleshwaram,
Bank Bengaluru
4 000217 10.09.2016 13,50,000/- HDFC Vidyaranyapura,
Bank Bengaluru
5 000218 10.09.2016 10,00,000/- HDFC Vidyaranyapura,
Bank Bengaluru
6 000219 10.09.2016 10,00,000/- HDFC Vidyaranyapura,
Bank Bengaluru
4. But the said cheques are dishonored due to 'payment stopped by drawer' on 14.09.2016. On 15.09.2016 the complainant contacted both the accused and informed them about the return of the cheques and the accused JUDGMENT 7 C.C.3641/2017 persons requested the complainant to bear with them for a day due to certain financial constrains and to and to represent the said cheques on representation would be honoured. Accordingly, the complainant to represent the said cheques again on 16.09.2016, but once again the cheques came back on 17.09.2016 with an endorsement 'payment stopped by drawer'. Hence the complainant got issued legal notice to the accused on 23.09.2016 sent by RPAD, the said notice duly served to the accused, but the accused neither complied nor replied to the same. Hence, the accused No.1 and 2 have committed an offence punishable under Section.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and prays for punish the accused in accordance with law.
5. After recording sworn statement of complainant with documentary evidence, this court has registered the case against the accused No.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Section.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Summons issued to the accused. The accused appeared before the court through their counsel and enlarged on JUDGMENT 8 C.C.3641/2017 bail. There afterwards, plea of accusation has been read over and explained to the accused of the language known by them and they pleaded not guilty and claims tobe tried.
6. In support of the case of the complainant, the complainant given his sworn statement by way of affidavit as PW1 and got marked Ex.P1 to 23 and this PW1 has been fully cross-examined by the accused counsel and thus the complaint closed his side evidence.
7. There afterwards, the accused persons examined under Section.313 of Cr.P.C, statement, in which they have totally denied the entire case of the complainant and in support of their denial, the accused No.1 examined himself as DW1 and got marked Ex.D1 to D26 and this DW1 has been fully cross-examined by the complainant counsel and thus the accused closed his side evidence.
8. There afterwards, in support of the case of the complainant, in spite of sufficient opportunity has been JUDGMENT 9 C.C.3641/2017 given the complainant did not addressed the argument on merit. Hence their side argument taken as nil.
9. There afterwards, in support of the case of the accused, the learned counsel for the accused submits written arguments by narrating facts and circumstance of case and he has also relied on the decisions reported in 2010 (2) AIR Kar R 473 (Dr.Geetha V/s.Vasanthi.S Shetty), in which, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka held that it is mandatory duty of the complainant for the offence punishable u/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
Further, relied on the decisions reported in (1996) 2 Supreme Court Cases 739 (Electronics Trade & Technology Development Corpn., Ltd., Secunderabad V/s. Indian Technologists & Engineers) in which, the Supreme Court of India held that clause © of the proviso, the statutory presumption of dishonest intention is satisfied . However, if the drawer also, before presentation of the cheque, issues notice to the payee not to present the same for encashment, and he still presents it, then Sec.138 is not attracted if the cheque is returned by the bank. JUDGMENT 10 C.C.3641/2017 Accordingly, the learned counsel for accused prays for acquittal of the accused in accordance with law.
10. On the basis of aforesaid facts and circumstances this court has framed the following points for considerations:
POINTS
1. Whether the complainant proves beyond all reasonable doubts that towards the sale consideration against the accused issued 10 cheques out of them 4 cheques are honoured and remaining 6 cheques presented for encashment by the complainant are detailed below:
Sl. Cheque Dated Amount Drawn Branch
No. Nos. on
1 174439 10.09.2016 13,50,000/- ICICI Malleshwaram
Bank Bengaluru
2 174440 10.09.2016 10,00,000/- ICICI Malleshwaram
Bank Bengaluru
3 174441 10.09.2016 10,00,000/- ICICI Malleshwaram,
Bank Bengaluru
4 000217 10.09.2016 13,50,000/- HDFC Vidyaranyapura,
Bank Bengaluru
5 000218 10.09.2016 10,00,000/- HDFC Vidyaranyapura,
Bank Bengaluru
6 000219 10.09.2016 10,00,000/- HDFC Vidyaranyapura,
Bank Bengaluru
But the cheques are returned unpaid with endorsement 'payment stopped by drawer' and after issuance of legal notice sent to the JUDGMENT 11 C.C.3641/2017 accused is duly served. Inspite of issuance of legal notice to the accused, he did not complied the notice and thus the accused committed an offence made punishable under Section.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act?
2. What order?
11. My answers to the above points are as follows:
Point No.1: In the Negative
Point No.2: As per the final order,
for the following.
REASONS
12. POINT NO.1: The complainant is the absolute
owner in possession of site No.11 of Lakshmipura Village, Yeshwanthpura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk. On 24.02.2016 the complainant executed the sale deed in favour of accused for a sum of Rs.1,77,00,000/- and same is registered before the Sub Registrar, Madanayakanahalli. The accused jointly paid sum of Rs.5,00,000/- by way of cash and issued 10 cheques towards sale consideration. Among 10 cheques 4 cheques of Rs.32,50,000/- and Rs.20,00,000/- each have been honoured and with respect of other 6 cheques detailed given below:
JUDGMENT 12 C.C.3641/2017
Sl. Cheque Dated Amount Drawn Branch
No. Nos. on
1 174439 10.09.2016 13,50,000/- ICICI Malleshwaram
Bank Bengaluru
2 174440 10.09.2016 10,00,000/- ICICI Malleshwaram
Bank Bengaluru
3 174441 10.09.2016 10,00,000/- ICICI Malleshwaram,
Bank Bengaluru
4 000217 10.09.2016 13,50,000/- HDFC Vidyaranyapura,
Bank Bengaluru
5 000218 10.09.2016 10,00,000/- HDFC Vidyaranyapura,
Bank Bengaluru
6 000219 10.09.2016 10,00,000/- HDFC Vidyaranyapura,
Bank Bengaluru
13. The cheques are dishonoured due to 'payment
stopped by drawer' on 14.09.2016 and also once again
represented the said cheques for encashment, but the same are dishonoured due to said reasons on 20.09.2016, total amount of Rs.67,00,000/-. In spite of service of legal notice sent by complainant on 23.09.2016 to the accused, but the accused did not repay the amount covered under the cheques and thus the accused committed an offence punishable u/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. In support of the case of the complainant, the complainant given sworn statement filed by way of affidavit as PW.1, in which he reiterated the complainant contention and got marked Ex.P1 to P23. Ex.P1 to P6 are the cheques amounted of Rs.13,50,000/- and Rs.10,00,000/- each and JUDGMENT 13 C.C.3641/2017 identified the signature of the accused No.1 as per Ex.P1(a) to Ex.P6(a). Ex.P7 to P18 are the bankers endorsements stating that all the said 6 cheques are dishonoured due to 'payment stopped by drawer'. Ex.P19 is the copy of legal notice, the notice has been sent to the accused as per Ex.P20 and P21 are the postal receipts, among the said notice one of the notice duly served to the first accused as per Ex.P22 is postal acknowledgement. But the accused did not replied or complied the notice. Ex.P23 is the complaint is not under dispute and Ex.P23(a) and (b) are the signatures of the complainant.
14. The accused appeared and contests this case by denying entire case of the complainant, in support his denial the learned counsel for accused cross-examined the PW.1. In order to prove the case of the complainant recorded on 23.01.2018, the relevant portion is in Kannada reads as follows:
JUDGMENT 14 C.C.3641/2017
"11(J) eÁUÀ gÀ¸ÉÛUÉ ºÉÆÃVzÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. 11(J) C£ÀĪÉÆâvÀ £ÀPÉëAiÀÄ°è E®è¢zÀÝgÀÄ ¸ÀºÀ DgÉÆæUÉ ªÉÆøÀ ªÀiÁr D dÁUÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÉÃj¹zÀAvÉ PÀæAiÀÄ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß §gÉÉzÀÄPÉÆnÖzÉÝãÉAzÀÄ £ÀÄrAiÀÄÄvÁÛgÉ.''
15. The said suggestion itself goes to show that there was a dispute regarding the property for execution of sale deed and he denied the rest of the contention of the accused. Further the accused counsel suggested that the BBMP authority have issued public notice on 3.8.2016 is denied by him. Further he has stated that in respect of said property is concerned. The relevant portion at the time of her cross-examination recorded on 03.02.2018 the same is in Kannada reads as follows:
"DgÉÆæUÉ 11J ¤ªÉñÀ£À ¸ÀºÀ £À£ÀßzÀÄ JAzÀÄ ¸ÀļÀÄî ºÉý PÀæAiÀÄ¥ÀvÀæ §gÉzÀÄPÉÆnÖzÉÝãÉAzÀÄ CzÀgÀ gÀ¢AÝ iÀiÁw PÉÆÃj ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÀæAiÀÄzÀ ºÀtzÀ ªÁ¥À¸ÁìwUÁV PÉÆÃj DgÉÆæ £À£Àß «gÀÄzÀÝ ¹«¯ï £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è NJ¸ï.£ÀA.8867-2017 gÀ zÁªÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ºÀÆrzÁÝgÉAzÀgÉ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛ®è."
16. The said suggestion itself goes to show that the dispute between the complainant and accused is purely attracted the civil in nature. As such the complainant failed to fulfill JUDGMENT 15 C.C.3641/2017 all the ingredients of the offence punishable u/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
17. The accused denied the entire case of the complainant, in support of his denial the first accused examined himself as DW.1, in which he has stated that as per the cross-examination of PW.1 and there was dispute before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and also civil case is pending before the Civil Court and got marked Ex.D1 is the memo in O.S.No.8867/2017, in which particulars of the original documents are produced before the Civil Court at Bengaluru. Ex.D2 is sale agreement dated 18.02.2016 taken between the complainant and accused No.1 and 2 for purchase of the site No.11 as stated in the complaint. Thereafterwards, the complainant executed his side sale deed in favour of accused No.1 and 2 as per Ex.D3, the same is not in dispute. Ex.D4 and D5 are the receipts, in which the complainant received a sum of Rs.34,00,000/- and Rs.11,00,000/- from the first accused and it is mentioned the measurement of the site No.11 is 15640 s.q. which is correct and agreed between JUDGMENT 16 C.C.3641/2017 the buyers and sellers and the said receipt alleged to be executed on 24.02.2016 and 18.02.2016. Ex.D6 is the HDFC bank letter 'To Whom So Ever May Concern', in which 'As per our request we confirm that cheque once requested for stop payment cannot be Re-validated as per out bank policy', the same is written in the name of this accused on 29.05.2017. Ex.D7 is ICICI Bank letter 'To Whom So Ever It May Concern' in the name of second accused about fixed deposit of Rs.5,00,000/- on 04.05.2016 to 23.06.2016, Ex.D8 is the HDFC Bank 'Fixed Deposit Summary' stands in the name of first accused during May 2016 to 5th October 2016. The first accused deposited various amount and it is mentioned maturity value of the deposit, Ex.D9 is the Axis Bank Balance Certificate issued in the name of first accused in which, the first accused had a balance of Rs.16,14,448.69/-, Ex.D10 is the certified copy of the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Crl.P.No.3978/2017 filed by the accused No.1 and 2 against the summons issued to the accused as a result dismiss the case and the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka made it clear that, 'The observation JUDGMENT 17 C.C.3641/2017 made by this Court shall not persuade the trial court while disposing the case on merits'. The trail court has to take its own decision on the basis of evidence on record'. Ex.D11 is the Request for refund of the amount from the first accused to the complainant on 02.09.2016 regarding the site No.11 along with other documents regarding BBMP opolizes to green bench withdraw circular published in news paper and also Residential Layout Plan, Revised Master Plan of 2015 and before the National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in original Application No.222 of 2014 and the said letter sent to the complainant by RPAD is duly served as per Ex.D12 is the postal acknowledgement for having sent the Ex.D11 to the complainant. Ex.D13 is the Form No.1 i.e. 'Form of application for seeking information under the Right to Information Act-2015,' sent to the Commissioner, BBMP, Bengaluru, in which, the first accused sought for documents from the authority, Ex.D14 is the speed post acknowledgement, Ex.D15 is the reply dated 29.11.2018 sent by the BBMP authority in the name of the first accused in which, he sought for the documents for that, JUDGMENT 18 C.C.3641/2017 they have issued the public notice on Rajakaluve and Ex.D16 is the public notice in which it is mentioned the construction of Rajkalauve Tank and other buildings within the BBMP authority, Ex.D17 is the National Green Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi order in original application No.223/2014 is the Judgment and order copy, Ex.D18 is the letter of BBMP about RTI information sought by the accused No.1, Ex.D19 is acknowledgment, Ex.D20 is the Form No.1 'Form of application for seeking information under the Right to Information Act-2015,' the application shown in the name of accused No.2, Ex.D21 is the speed post acknowledgement, sent to the public information officer by the accused No.2. Ex.D22 is letter of Karnataka Government regarding RTI Information sought by the second accused for that, they have furnished 672 pages of the documents sought by the accused No.2, Ex.D23 is the Urban Development Secretariat Final Notification, Ex.D24 is the C/c order of Supreme Court New Delhi in D.No.32126/17/SC/IVA sent to The Registrar, High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru, The Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka, Vidhana Soudha, JUDGMENT 19 C.C.3641/2017 Bengaluru and The Commissioner, Bengaluru Development Authority issued from The Assistant Registrar, Supreme Court of India, New Delhi, Ex.D25 is the order sent to Director, Government of Karnataka, Bengaluru issued by Secretariat, Urban Development Department, Vikasa Soudha, Bengaluru with regard to Dr.Shivaram Karanth Extension and Ex.D26 is the Karnataka Rajya Pathra dated: 31.12.2018 about publication of accusation of land by the BDA, Benglauru during all the working days dated 03.08.2018.
18. On the basis of aforesaid oral and documentary evidence of accused, the accused had given rebuttal evidence to the case of the complainant and in the cross- examination of DW.1 has denied the entire case of the complainant and alleged cheque in question are not at all issued for discharge of any liability and as such, the complainant has not approached this Court in a proper manner and the accused had given a rebuttal evidence to the case of the complainant for the offence punishable u/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. In support of the JUDGMENT 20 C.C.3641/2017 case of the complainant the learned counsel for complainant did not addressed the arguments on merit in spite of sufficient opportunity has been given and hence their side argument taken as nil. In support of defence taken by the accused, the learned counsel for accused submitted written arguments by narrating the facts and circumstances of the case and relying on the citations reported as cited above are applicable to the case of accused, to show that the accused had given rebuttal evidence to the case of the complainant. As such the complainant failed to prove the alleged guilt of the accused for the offence punishable u/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Hence, benefit of doubt given to the accused and accused No.1 and 2 are entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, I answered Point No.1 in the Negative.
19. POINT NO.2: From the forgoing reasons while answering to the Point No.1, I proceed to pass the following:
JUDGMENT 21 C.C.3641/2017
ORDER Acting under Section.255(1) Cr.P.C., the accused No.1 and 2 are acquitted from the alleged offence punishable under Section.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
The accused No.1 and 2 are set at liberty and their bail band and surety bond if any will be continued for a period of 6 months in compliance of under sec.437(a) Cr.P.C., (Dictated to the stenographer, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 23rd day of January -2020) (NAGARAJEGOWDA. D.) XIII Addl. C.M.M., Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant:
PW.1 : Sri.Lokeshwara Documents marked on behalf of the complainant:
Ex.P1 to 6 : Cheques
Ex.P1(a) to P6(a) : Signatures of accused
Ex.P7 to 18 : Endorsements
Ex.P19 : Legal Notice
Ex.P20 & 21 : Postal receipts
JUDGMENT 22 C.C.3641/2017
Ex.P22 : Postal acknowledgment
Ex.P23 : Complaint
Witnesses examined on behalf of the accused:
DW.1 : Sri.Pran Nath Documents marked on behalf of the accused:
Ex.D1 : Memo for production of document in O.S.No.8867/2017 before the city civil court.
Ex.D2 : Sale Agreement date 18.02.2016. Ex.D3 : Absolute Sale Deed 24.02.2016 taken between the complainant and accused No.1 and 2.
Ex.D4 : Receipt dated 24.02.2016. Ex.D5 : Receipt dated 18.02.2016. Ex.D6 : HDFC Bank letter dated 29.05.2017. Ex.D7 : ICICI Bank Statement dated 04.08.2017. Ex.D8 : HDFC Bank Statement. Ex.D9 : Axis Bank Balance Certificate Ex.D10 : Criminal Petition of High Court of
Karnataka in Crl.P.No.3978/2017 is the C/c of the order.
Ex.D11 : Request for refund for amount dated 02.09.2016 sent by the first accused to the complainant.
Ex.D12 : Postal Acknowledgment dated 06.09.2016.
Ex.D13 : Form No.1 dated 31.10.2018.
JUDGMENT 23 C.C.3641/2017
Ex.D14 : C/c Speed Post Acknowledgement.
Ex.D15 : Reply dated 29.11.2018.
Ex.D16 : Public Notice.
Ex.D17 : National Green Tribunal Principal Bench,
New Delhi order copy.
Ex.D18 : BBMP Letter dated:03.12.2018.
Ex.D19 : BBMP Letter dated:03.12.2018.
Ex.D20 : Form No.1 dated 25.02.2019.
Ex.D21 : Speed post Acknowledgement.
Ex.D22 : Letter of Karnataka Government.
Ex.D23 : Karnataka Rajya Pathra of Urban
Development Secretariat copy.
Ex.D24 : Supreme Court order
D.No.32126/17/SC/IV-A
Dated:31.08.2018.
Ex.D25 : Karnataka Government Letter dated
Dated: 31.10.2018.
Ex.D26 : Karnataka Rajya Pathara 31.12.2008.
(NAGARAJEGOWDA. D.)
XIII Addl. C.M.M., Bengaluru.