Neha D/O Aravind Udeshi vs Sri Adesh Pramod Barde on 12 April, 2010
w2\.%
HIGH COURT LEGAL SERVICES COMMITTEE,DHARWAD
BEFORE THE LOX ADALAT ... BETWEEN: '
NEHAV"D/'O"A;RiAVI§§§D UDESHI A
AGED
Satalingappa Udeshi vs The Land Tribunal Chikkodi on 18 January, 2012
Author: Ajit J Gunjal
Bench: Ajit J.Gunjal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA ... AJIT J.GUNJAL
WRIT PETITION NO.3577/2006(LR)
Between:
Sri Satalingappa Udeshi,
S/o Dundappa Udeshi,
Since dead by LRs
1(A) Smt. Suman
State Bank Of India vs Morarji Meghji Udeshi on 23 December, 2020
Author: Krishna S.Dixit
Bench: Krishna S.Dixit
1
IN THE HIGH COURT ... YEARS. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI KRISHNA SWAMY S, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . MORARJI MEGHJI UDESHI
16, QUEEN'S TERRACE, COLOMBO-3,
REPRESENTED
placed reliance on a decision of Supreme Court in PUSHPABAI PURSHOTTAM UDESHI v. RANJIT GINNING & PRESSING CO. , 1977 ACJ 343
8. On the other ... been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Pushpabai Purshottam Udeshi , supra, there being no statutory obligation for the Insurer under Chapter VIII
decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Pushpabai Parshottam Udeshi v. Ranjit Ginning and Pressing Co. (P .) Ltd., , in which the Supreme Court
story so told being clear and unambiguous".
In Pushpabai Parshottam Udeshi and Ors. v. M/s. Ranjit Ginning and Pressing Company Private Limited ... decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Pusk-puhai Parsliottam Udeshi, supra, wherein it was held that:
" Motor Vehicles Act (1939), Section
ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in Pushpabai Parshottam Udeshi v. Ranjit Ginning and Pressing Co. P. Ltd. , , the Full Bench held
Insurance Company Limited, NEW Delhi v. Jugal Kishore and Ors. , Pushpabai Parshoitam Udeshi and Ors. v. Ranjit Ginning and Pressing Company Private, Limited
vehicle" with effect from 14-11-1994.
7. In Pushpabai Parshottam Udeshi and Others v M/s. Ranjit Ginning and Pressing Company Private Limited
that the Supreme Court of India in the case of Pushpabai Parshottam Udeshi v. Ranjit Ginning and Pressing Co. Pvt. Ltd. , , has ruled that
