Wipro Limited vs Insurance Regulatory Development ... on 13 November, 2009

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Wipro Limited vs Insurance Regulatory Development ... on 13 November, 2009

Bench: Mohan Shantanagoudar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 131"" DAY OF NOVEMBER 2009

FRESENT

TI-I13 HON'BLE MR. P.D. DINAKARAN. CHIEF Jt__Iss'Tt(;§fc.:'___f  A' 

AND

THE HON-ﬁLE MR. JUSTICE MoHA1<; O_ 

Writ Appeal No.3253 of 2005  " "

Between:

1 WIPRO LTD  ~ -   ;  _ 
DODDAKANNELLI, SARJAPUR  * .  
BANGALORE-35»,  - 2 ~
REP BY ms LEG.A.L_'CO'EJNSEL - ._
AND AUTHQR1SE?D__é31GNA'FQRY.- 1- .
MR A PAm'.4AN'A.BHAN   '

2 APADMAN;'&BHAVN'..Ofw.  
S/O C s ANANTHANARAYANAN
AGE}).VABOUTV_-42 ..YEARs' 

V NO. L;i335; RAINBOW DRQVE

'  . SAiRJAPI.JRv~.ROAD'  """ N'
. BANG-ALOREJ35
      ...APPELLANTS

(_r3y7'i__M}s HOLLA 3: HOLLA, ADVOCATE}

 .1  INSURANCE REGULATORY

 DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (IRDA)

INSURANCE REGULATORY

 " '-'DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ACT, 1999

PARISRAMA BHAVAN

t..,. :',7_fA





5-9-58/B, BASHEER BAGH
HYDERABAD--5OO 004

2 TARIFF ADVISORY COMMITTEE

(GENERAL INSURANCE)

A STATUTORY BODY

UNDER THE INSURANCE ACT, 1938

ADOR HOUSE, 5, K DUBASH MARC

MUMBAI

2 RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD, *

A COMPANY ENCORPORATED .  "
UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, .3956' ._  . .
EAST WING, 5TH FLOOR, 28, CENTENARYI _
BUILDING, M.G.ROAD  * " ~.
BANGALORE 1  '

4 ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO--L'1'--1_)  ;
ACOMPARY INCORPORATED  I
UNDER THE COIvIPANIES"AC*r, 1956 
44/45, IST LEO SHOPP'ING-_C0_MPLEX

RESIDENCY LCCROSE. ROAD.
P EOxI1NO_2S'Iv2._--3,_.LV   
BANGAL_ORE~42.5 '   _ 

 Q   ...RESPONDEN'I'S

(BY SRI "'RAIVIDAS 3: ANAND, ADV. FOR R1
&..-R2, SMT:*.PRATHIMA.*J,_j_§DF.--'. FOR R4)

 THIS'  FILED U/S 4 OF' THE KARNATAKA
I~IIGI~I..CO_I.IR1"_ PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED

  IN TIIEWRIT PEFITIQ'N NO.5022'7/2004 DATED 26/O7/2005.

 I  THIS  APPEAL COMING UP FOR HEARING ON THIS

%  COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-

 
 



J UDGMENT

(Delivered by P.D.Dinakaran, C.J.)

The appe1Iar1ts--writ petitioners have   

appeal being aggrieved by the order  

the interim order granted by this_.C0urt7on'--.18.  

Petition No.50227/2004.
2. It is the case of the"'appe].iants:%y:rritpetitioners that on
the application I.A.I/2005 fried e,1by' It-eg1§g;i¢;'aents~1 and 2

seeking vacation  order 18.12.2004 in

the Writ  by the impugned
order dated both the learned counsel
appearing_f_0r  declined to continue the interim
order. gr-anteddoiivthe ground that the appellants-

petitionersti "  complied with the demand of the

 ._?*respondents the entire amount. Hence, the appeal.

_ gHeard:' the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

4. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellants- petitioners submit that the Writ petition which challenge in this appeal has been finally dispose_d:--0i"' dated 28th March 2008 and hence, the re}.ief seeMgh£'el{e£'i:n:s:h:sK "

Writ appeal does not survive for 7.'_c0'nsi'deVfation"

accordingly, the writ appeal dismisse'd 'havingl become infructuous.

.5. Recording learned counsel appearing for the Writ appeal is dismissed as haVing_, beéoine"ini'ructu0us.

sd/..

l " iiiii Cﬂueflusﬁce Sdff Judge d', 1 Yes'l$Io.

Yes/No 'axe -

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court