SMT. SAVITHA v. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, K.S.R.T.C.. SARIGE BHAVANA
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
objections, failing which the appeal stands dismissed for non
Provisions considered
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 s. 173(1)
Key paragraphs
- Para 22. KRISHNAPPA, S/O, BASAPPA, 58 YEARS, RIO, GORAVIGERE VILLAGE, BIDAREHALLI HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK - 560 049. RESPONDENTS p P MFA.No.4232/ll 2 This MFA filed U/s 173(1) of MV Act against Judgment and Award dated 20.5.20 10 passed in MVC No.7862/2008 on the file of…
Judgment
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE L. NARAYANASWAMY MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4232 OF 2011 BETWEEN SMT. SAVITHA, W/O. LATE SHRI LOKESH, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, RESIDING AT GORIVIGERE, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK. (By Sri. MUNIYAPPA D. NAVEEN,, Advocate) APPELLANT AND THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, K.S.R.T.C.. SARIGE BHAVANA. DOUBLE ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 027.
Operative part
KRISHNAPPA, S/O, BASAPPA, 58 YEARS, RIO, GORAVIGERE VILLAGE, BIDAREHALLI HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK - 560 049. RESPONDENTS p P MFA.No.4232/ll 2 This MFA filed U/s 173(1) of MV Act against Judgment and Award dated 20.5.20 10 passed in MVC No.7862/2008 on the file of the XII Addi. Small Causes Judge, Member, MACT, Bangalore, partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation. This Miscellaneous First Appeal is coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following: ORD& Two weeks time is granted to comply with office objections, failing which the appeal stands dismissed for non compliance of office objections without reference to Bench. jjQflj vide Court Order dt.18.6.12 the Office Objections are not complied with. Hence Appeal stands dismissed. Sd/ JUDGE -COPY” - .0 (P. SRINWAS) ASSIJj9IjFR TI r t’ n’:t oftiinai ii ..: ta. 3flQQfl 4t• — T By: 1G.. R B3:c 9 C By: ,,!‘ ..A Y 7,
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: objections, failing which the appeal stands dismissed for non
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — s. 173(1).
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.