Karnataka High Court · 1998
Judgment
I IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE 1998 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE A J. SADASHIVA WRIT PETITION NO2O687/l992 BETWEEN: eikk nm aged EN y&dE t g a Nt Eta ea, ge 42 >‘e c MorNtppa • e 4 16 iremappa aged 36 7ea 3 a
7
Padrpaeetbi igcd 26 yC a. 6 L 04 lahutha, agtci 2a yeas, t g a U CS! . Jrc of 4iu1aa3a1iippJ> iI!&e. PUNtcodiabady, Puttur To. [ t Disar t 61 J I )NEF 4 1! 1 e t. ( f p. r cia J AN? Er 44J Er ‘I! ‘ £ 6? ,Tc3TT, g N Me °c a Er€tt Votiaopa Shetty. aarEr 4& years, TOt aleth-<, uged uhnt 22 cears. EaPONuENPI I UN iC. . I 0 C 0 -n 7 z 0 C -4 -n 7 Z 7 I I 8 -n 7 z C C 0 I S 0 I 1 ( 8 C 0 7 7 C) I 8 C 0 a 7 - I C - F l - I C f t f tE f t f t — : 2 : s o ’ - ’ F . 3 - — J — l C L 3 - - 4 - • — t _ ì L _ 1 - L - 4 f t F — — 7 I F • C - I f t f t C L I f t f t . ’ f t 2 3 - - - F t f t - l I f t 4 — - ‘ 3 : ) F - f t f t f t ‘ f t I : 3 - 0 C F 3 3 - - 1 - - - f t f t t4 f f t . f t : 4 f t 4 . f t - j 4 - — f t F ) f t E < 2 : ) f t F ) 4 — C f t 4 — ’ I F 2 : 2 C , — F ) I C ’ - 4 - f t 1 2 : , 4 — - 4 C ’ — - - ‘ f t -4 4 0 2 I F — - — 4 ( 3 _ F 0 3 : 4 - 3 F - 1 - - 4 F 2 : 4 - — F - 2 : ’ f t 0 C L : 1 ) C , - 4_ F 4 - - ) - 4 - f t 3 - F C - 4 - 3 - 1 3 — F — 4 - 1 2 ) 1 F - 7 I 4 - ) 2 : ) 1 f t C — I F C f t C r f t 1 - - I 4 - ‘ - c - 3 f t f t j- F f t 4 — - 7 - 3 — - - f t H 4 - 4 4 . L 2 : & H- 4 f t 4 - 2 : — ‘ F F - 34 - - 4 - - - ( 3 4 — - 1 £ 2 : f t 4 - f t F 2 : F ) F • 4 . - f t - 2 : 2 : 2 4 - 3 : F f t ‘ - 4 F l ’ ) 2 : - 2 : — 3 ‘ O - • - ‘ H - 4 - 4 l I f t - 4 • : F l l E 3 ‘ O F l f t - - - i 4 - — 0 If t - C C ) 1 2 ‘ . F ’ f t - ì ‘ - - 4 - f t f t ) - 4 - 4 c F F 4 7 : 3 - L4 % L b 8 H C O U R T O F K A R N A T A K A I H G H C O U R T O F K A R N A T A K A I H G H C O U R T O F K A R N A T A K A I H G H C O U R T O F K A R N A T A K A I H G H C O U R T O F K A R N A T A K A * C O U R T O F K A R N A T A K A ‘ 4 ’ G - C O U R T O F ‘ C A R N A T A K A f l O p . C O U R T O F K A R N A T A K A ‘ 4 I G r : o u w ’ O F C A R N A 4 % 4 - e G ’ t O U R ? 0 “ A ? % A f l : 6 G H C O U R T O F K A R N A T A K A I H G H C O U R T O F K A R N A T A K A H G H C O U R T C F K A R N A T A K A H G H C O U R T O F K A R N A T A K A i H G H C O U R T O F A R N A T A K A teasel So a i t r d tht.ir t&our rtaast. dtlCfl at huaband of t1rt eacdrt c upr re’;& L teThr t u tao c tI etitioners As the urder rs not chaitenged h the Lan titsnae it is i ut orct t rv ç - u S It. it. Ei c 3 The pet tion th efor , f - id i -o A rely F ;ed :t, tn th rue s- f t ci h St C c 0 t ‘41 TTtrmnn 0 0 C 0 Xe I a 8 C Or z I a I n 0 C 0 I 0 2: n 0 C 0 1
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.