Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Manjunath S/O Basappa Arali, vs Manohar S/O Kashinath Umade, on 22 March, 2018

Author: S G Pandit

Bench: S G Pandit

                                        MFA NO.101799 of 2015




        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                DHARWAD BENCH

     DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH, 2018

                       PRESENT

       THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.G.RAMESH

                         AND

       THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT

           M.F.A.No.101799 of 2015 (MV)

BETWEEN:

SHRI MANJUNATH S/O BASAPPA ARALI
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: CABLE OPERATOR AND BUSINESS,
R/O: LOTUS COLONY, DODDANAYAKANAKOPPA
TQ/DIST: DHARWAD.
                                            ...APPELLANT
(BY SHRI SHRUTI A. NEELOPANT, ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI SHRIHARSH A. NEELOPANT, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.   MANOHAR S/O KASHINATH UMADE
     AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: KSRTC DRIVER
     II DIVISION HUBLI RURAL, HUBLI
     R/O: KERUR, TQ: HUBBALLI,

2.   THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
     NWKRTC, GOKUL ROAD,
     HUBBALLI.

3.   THE SELF INSURANCE FUND
     KSRTC, SHANTI NAGAR, BENGALURU.
                                            ...RESPONDENTS
                                           MFA NO.101799 of 2015

                                :2:




     THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT 1987, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 31.07.2013, PASSED IN MVC NO.244/2011, ON THE FILE
OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRCIT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT
DHARWAD, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION
166 OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT 1988.


     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
H.G.RAMESH, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:


                          JUDGMENT

H.G.RAMESH, J. (Oral):

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant inspite of orders dated 18.07.2016 and 29.01.2018 granting time to file a better affidavit in support of the application filed for condonation of the delay in filing the appeal, no affidavit is filed till date. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant has not given instructions in the matter inspite of informing the appellant of the aforesaid two orders.

2. It appears that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting this appeal. Hence, the application filed for MFA NO.101799 of 2015 :3: condonation of the delay of 579 days in filing the appeal and the appeal are dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE Sd/-

JUDGE RHR/-