Munishamy vs the State of Karnataka

Munishamy vs The State of Karnataka

Type Court Judgment Court Karnataka Orders Decided Jun 22, 2026

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1523433

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1523433
Court: Karnataka Orders High Court
Judge: M.G.S. Kamal
Decided On: Jun 22, 2026
Case Number: WP/46682/2017

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Munishamy

Respondent

The State of Karnataka

Excerpt

in the high court of karnataka, bengaluru dated this the 07th day of january, 2019 before the hon'ble mr. justice b m shyam prasad writ petition no.46682/2017 (gm-res) between: munishamy, s/o late muniyappa, aged about 50 years, r/at byrathnahalli village, tekal hobli, malur taluk, kolar district - 563101. ... petitioner (by sri. rasheed khan, advocate) and1. the state of karnataka, represented by its secretary, mujarai department, m.s building, bengaluru - 01.2. the deputy commissioner,3. the assistant commissioner,4. the tahsildar, malur taluk, kolar district - 563101. ... respondents (by sri. v. sreenidhi, aga) this writ petition is filed under articles 226 and 227of the constitution of india praying to direct the respondent no.4 to order for release of the arrears of salary, re-grant amount and income accrued from the eucalyptus trees grown in the above said property as per the annexures-g, h, j and etc., this writ petition coming on for orders this day, the court made the following:-orderlearned counsel for the petitioner was granted four weeks time to comply with the office objections on the condition that if office objections are not complied with within the said four weeks, the petition shall stand dismissed.2. it is seen from the office note that the office objections have not been complied with. therefore, the petition stands dismissed for default. sd/- judge ka/-

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO.46682/2017 (GM-RES) Between: Munishamy, S/o Late Muniyappa, Aged about 50 years, R/at Byrathnahalli Village, Tekal Hobli, Malur Taluk, Kolar District - 563101. ... Petitioner (By Sri. Rasheed Khan, Advocate) And
1. The State of Karnataka, Represented by its Secretary, Mujarai Department, M.S Building, Bengaluru - 01.
2. The Deputy Commissioner,
3. The Assistant Commissioner,
4. The Tahsildar, Malur Taluk, Kolar District - 563101. ... Respondents (By Sri. V. Sreenidhi, AGA) This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227

of the Constitution of India praying to direct the respondent No.4 to order for release of the arrears of salary, re-grant amount and income accrued from the eucalyptus trees grown in the above said property as per the Annexures-G, H, J and etc., This writ petition coming on for Orders this day, the court made the following:-

ORDER

Learned counsel for the petitioner was granted four weeks time to comply with the office objections on the condition that if office objections are not complied with within the said four weeks, the petition shall stand dismissed.

2. It is seen from the office note that the office objections have not been complied with. Therefore, the petition stands dismissed for default. SD/- JUDGE KA/-

Same Court & Year Karnataka Orders · 2026 Same Parties Munishamy vs The State of Karnataka Same Judge M.G.S. Kamal

Deputy Commissioner high court The State