NaLonal Insu vance Co. Ltd v. Sidd.appa
Judgment
(By Sri. ANKrishnaswamy, Advocate) AND:
1.. Sidd.appa. S/o,Eranna. ow aVeci a bent R/o,eltv a.r ..Post, Kailambella Hobli BRa Tq I vcars — /o. y ,C,Pan ha.k sh, araian. Be: Iblajor. Tw.nkur. Respondents (Sri. K,Ve-nkate Gowda. Advocate for R1I .0 00 11115 DNA 15 FiT 1:1, 1 \ NI I) IN \k( A C K \0. ‘200) ON 1111 1 HOn1 1) D[’ WC AC I ADAINSI FIN .ItDOMEN I DATED \BOUTF TI MM R flU (1 ‘ID 01 (l< ID )IFKMLNH COMltNSAH( IN lFSi U lARD F All OWINc FIT F 01 ENIIANCI MFNI UHF SFLKIN() (1 )FI\IISHI( )\LiF oDD NsAI1DN ol 1 0 ‘ (‘tILT \sAilON ANT) I i 0) OlIN I N 00 1 Ut xill)IN 0111105 ç Di 11 b V ovo 0. i us ,i<E 0 P \ i 5< I i u () (‘5(11 I\’ION EEl 010 10K OD\E\I in 1: 1 0 lu 2 I DLI (A’ ‘N \l IJIT CONCILIATION ORDER 1 1 a ut ‘ c’ insel tin -rpp’ lion’ Tn’uan” e OnIpIflV alorl&T tt iii its 1 ( pi C sentati C md the learned ounsel br the R p IC rut NC 1 C I Ut StIlt 2 I UN N t lainntiit ippcai N aaiiisU the Judgnrenr arid An so’ i’ nd IA din ‘mrnlHsioner B niuti Isi C onseni oi The H, 1ffl’ Ii c’50C (I i H a iuiU of ks 1 60 (i00 (Rupce One L’rkl diNt 0 a I Nit lvii 11 uuiiet eNt i ordni eu I lie Ilk F flt 13 ci DL 3 )7 3 3, j±h 1liieicNt ‘ ‘ • 5 ‘ :5 1 1 ilSLln UI 1t IDI1 ilt 1 finai l,nuTl&I[T )I I il’s si ‘1’ U H tOt I H a tiLl pa tie 11 t1 1 sifts 1 I I I I IC F I I I I Ii a1 I II I ii Il N \ ‘ if F I’ 1 00 IC S JIOCI 1 111 t & 3 I ‘ S-Cl I Ii anslei rt I ) The ( orninissionei for Workmen ( 4 li) ) Ti Eu T hoc 1 Ins iii e H 10 flu hi s apiwal si ii ids disposed of in u i ms of :iw Juii lilt ui El ri a i h Triinii oh “lot]] -ttnd uvcIti d ‘1 (hi toi\ -4
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.