State Of Meghalaya vs State Of Karnataka Dept Of ... on 27 December, 2010
Bench: Manjula
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
made, has taken cognizance of offence
by its order dated 23l.10.2006.
Aggrieved with the order of
cognizance, the petitioner approached this
Court
with 6% future interest from
V 23L.Q7lVk£003l It is also not in dispute that said suit came
transferred to the Court
adopted at very tngeriietis
issuirig 13()l.ill.(f23l.lO1I dated 1.2.8.2008 to delete the
from the itetifiecl list. and hamcl over
HALL! WSORE :»~c~:'23L:,, =
HOLENARA-S'!i--"'URk=;.. '
HASSAN DIS?" " '
(BY $r§,B.S,§Fifi
suit O.S.No.405/92,
the land bearing Sy.No.23l/2, Anegere
Village, Panchanahalli Hoblt, Kadar Taluk,
Chikkamagalar Dist. measuring 1 acre