Sri. Kakaral Ravikumar vs The State Of Karnataka on 22 March, 2012
Equivalent citations: 2013
53Tl£}§} la-'23l.:~s %:a§§.en by me: Slale
23l§§i:'.riZ§};
hisrr' §"<.}sé.£é:"@{§ z1:<>£',1r1:'-3;" {E*'sfif
State Of Meghalaya vs State Of Karnataka Dept Of ... on 27 December, 2010
Bench: Manjula
23l 2:m<>::m: of éakhg
gznié S§Oi"IE€7 gzmgasmsa
2fi.V1{T%i'1'{}f§';23L'f.§?.?§a. ti'2é% segtamé Yflfipflfifidfiili, Eizazas
carefuliy Considered
V'i'l1.e 'Ij'23L?1,:S '0;1'"1.h.e (muse
23L?¥°m°$y% V i
. V ASmfi%.: eswari, 'W/o
31-1 -.' Jvi c-ff -. .AjSr1'r1._va.sg~,. -Murhty
purchase tV'iw._as tli1*Icretased to
Rs.14,70,23l.0O. Both were placed
from Mumbai; ~:tspecificallyitfrnentioned therein
and agreed to the jurisdiction
cash to reduce his
liability; whichd accftiecl on presentation of bills.
23l."«.At AAI'-e1e'u'ant time, PW14--Pradeep