The General Manager, KSRTC v. D. Nagaraju
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. Learned counsel appearing for both the parties, at the outset, fairly submitted that in the light of the statements made and for the reasons stated in the memorandum of facts filed on oath by the learned counsel appearing for Corporation, the said Misc. Cvl.…
- Para 55. In the light of the submission of the learned counsel appearing for both parties, as stated supra and for the reasons stated in the memorandum of facts filed along with the Misc. Cvl., by the learned counsel appearing for appellant/ Corporation, the said Misc.…
Judgment
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.PATIL AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE L.NARAYANASWAMY Misc. Cvl. 6299 of 2009 IN M.F.A. NO.1620 OF 2005 (MV) Between: The General Manager, KSRTC (By Shri. N.K.Ramesh, Advocate) ... Appellant And: D. Nagaraju, S/o. Late Dasappa (By Shri. Swamy & Singh, Advocates) ******** ... Respondent This Misc. Cvl. is filed Under Section 151 of CPC, praying to modify the order dated 06/11/2008 passed in this appeal, in the interest of justice and equity. This Misc. Cvl. coming on N.K. PATIL J., made the following: for Orders this day, 2
O R D E R This Misc. Cvl. is filed by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Corporation, seeking to modify the judgment passed in the above appeal dated 6th November 2008.
We have heard the learned counsel appearing for both the parties, for quite some time.
Learned counsel appearing for both the parties, at the outset, fairly submitted that in the light of the statements made and for the reasons stated in the memorandum of facts filed on oath by the learned counsel appearing for Corporation, the said Misc. Cvl. may be allowed, by accepting the same and office may be directed to carry out necessary correction in the judgment dated 6th November 2008. 3
The submission made by learned counsel appearing for both the parties, as stated supra, is placed on record.
In the light of the submission of the learned counsel appearing for both parties, as stated supra and for the reasons stated in the memorandum of facts filed along with the Misc. Cvl., by the learned counsel appearing for appellant/ Corporation, the said Misc. Cvl. is allowed. Office is directed to carry out necessary correction in the judgment dated 6th November 2008 and issue fresh certified copy of the same, forthwith. JUDGE SD/- SD/- JUDGE BMV*
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 151.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Karnataka High Court, on 06 Nov 2008. The bench was N K PATIL, L NARAYANASWAMY.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.