REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

JAYARAM Appellant

V/S

State of Karnataka And Another Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

INLAND REVENUE COMMISSIONERS V. DUKE OF WESTMINISTER [REFERRED TO]
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA V. BANK OF NEW SOUTH WALES [REFERRED TO]
SHIVA PRASAD SINGH V. EMPEROR [REFERRED TO]
ASSOCIATED HOTELS OF INDIA LIMITED VS. R N KAPOOR [REFERRED TO]
H S RIKHY MANOHAR LAL MR P GOYLE VS. NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE [REFERRED TO]
G K KRISHNAN A SUBRAMANYAM SIVA TOURISTS VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU:GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU:STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
TARKESHWAR SIO THAKUR JIU VS. DAR DASS DEY AND CO [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. HINDUSTAN ALUMINIUM CORPN [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF TAMIL NADU VS. HIND STONE [REFERRED TO]
SACHIDANAND PANDEY VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]
PRATIBHA COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
SAMATHA HYDERABAD ABRASIVES AND MINERALS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
RAUNAQ INTERNATIONAL LIMITED VS. I V R CONSTRUCTION LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
DELTA INTERNATIONAL LIMITED VS. SHYAM SUNDAR GANERIWALLA [REFERRED TO]
MALIK BROTHERS VS. NARENDRA DADHICH [REFERRED TO]
K RUDRAIAH RAJU VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BIHAR & ORISSA VS. KUMAR KAMAKSHA NARAIN SINGH, MAHARAJA OF PADMA [REFERRED TO]
FALA KRISTA PAL VS. JAGANNATH MARWARI [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by way of public interest by one Sri Jayaram, Member, Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee and resident of Hukkund Village, Kanakapura Taluk, seeking for the following reliefs:

(2.) The facts as narrated in the petition are as under:

(3.) Petitioner alleges that a clandestine agreement was arrived at between fourth and fifth respondents to reduce the premium payable by inventing the concept of small blocks causing loss to the fourth respondent. It is also alleged that as against the higher offer of Shantha Exports, the fifth respondent was preferred with ulterior motives and on account of this the loss to be caused to the fourth respondent was estimated to be more than 10 crores. In this set of facts, petitioner has sought for various reliefs by raising several grounds in this petition. The sum and substance of the argument of the petitioner is that the agreement between fourth and fifth respondents runs counter to a statutory provision of law and the agreement cannot be enforced in view of Rule 19-A of the Rules.

Click here to view full judgment.

JAYARAM Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address