Karnataka Circuit Bench High Court · 2011
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD 2 L)\ I t1iPt Before THE HON’BLE MRJUSTICE HNNAGAMOHAN DAS Miscellaneous First appeal No2] 343 20099v1\ BETWEEN: ShriJvallappa S/o. Laxamappa Pujari, Age: 33 years, 0cc: Goundi / Mason. Ro. Talakatnal, Now at ostArabhavi. Ta: Gokak, Dist: Belgauni. (By S‘ci. P.V. Gunjal i9 Mastiholi, Advocate) ...Appeliant a IN L) I anama.nth S/c. Shankreppa Pujari, Age: 39 years, 0cc: Agriculture, • / o. Ara.bh avi. (dci cli.. Gist: .Elelgaurn. — J ‘ . a.ring
The Manager Raliance Generri Insurance (Jo Ltd.. ‘“ c J • . . , 2 4 ) ) l C D C — - - C O c C0 c . i ) D C 0 i )c S C D C D C i - r ) O C D C ) c c c D1 C 0 0 H ) C C — ” 4 - * 0 0 ) C 2 D C i c i C “ D C D C ) c C v r C o 0 C i 0 c c > c c ” D C D C ) i C O C D C D C 0 0 0 0 , 4 - i c — ) c D C C D C C , 2 i Dc C D C D C D C ) D C — C ) D C ) ‘ C — < ) C ) C D C D C D 0 0 . C 3 “ “ ) C i c , _ i c C “ ) X O - D C H ) C - ) ) C C 0 D C C “ ) ) C i c i c D C D C - - D C - - > 4 ) C ’ r 0 - 4 - ) D C C ) O D C D C ’ 0 4 c S D C D C . > - D C r o ) C d “ j _ ) ) C C 0 0 ) C D C D C D C D C , ) _ i c r o r O . L * . — . . 0 . . , 2 C 0 + — r O i c )4 C c c 0 2 2 ) C C ) - i c S ) 0 “ - - ) 0 i c D C — - ” D C ) 0 ) ( _ — D C D C 0 0 C 0 r O r O i c C ) 0 D C ) i C 0 0 , L ) C D C i C “ ) C ) I C - D C ) C D C r i - c i c ) C ( ) C D C ) r O Q ) D C 0 “ “ 2
c c c .C c . D C ( C D C O C ° i c 0 2 i c D C 2 £ 2 . . , D C . c . — - c c ) C D C 3 ‘ - c S i c ) C D C D C i c < ) c r c D C j ) F ) C - r r o D C D C D C — o C - D C D C — ) C ) C 2 2 C — - D C D C - i c C c 4 c c c ) C i c D C 0 0 ) 0 ) / C ) C D C C D C . 2 t c < i c D C . c C F + r ) C D C ) 0 i )c oC d i c D C D C + r ) c d ) C D C i - D C i c D C ) C 0 2 r O ) C . 2 i c ) C D C . - - ) C D C D C D C c = ) C D C D C . — D C 0 0 ) C D C — D C D C ) C D C ) C 0 0
D 3 C D D oS c C O C i D C D C o ) D C 0 o o 0 D C D C ) C 5 ) 0 —C D i c ) C C C ) C i c E ) C C D 2 1 — 2 0 0 ) C D C “ i c J H0 C • 0 ) C 1 “ ) C ) 0 D C ) - C 2 C D . 2 0 - 0 D C . . D C D C ’ 0 o 0 4 ‘ D C ) C — c c c D C ) 0 i Dc C i c ) C S — c S C I 5 D —C 0 2 i c . a H H — a D C D C ) C H D C 4 : a D C H r H D C D C C ( D C 9 o r C C C ) i c ) ” C 4 D C D C D C i c ) C ( D C ) l C C c 9 - 9 H H ) C ) l C D C D C i o- — 9 9 D C D C H 9 H H H D C 9 D C T )ç ” C aC D : a C D C D C D C D C H ” r H D C r C D C H D C 1 - D C i c i I - D C D C D C — C D C r H C rHC C D r HC D HC C D . I - D C r Ha c i C r C ) l C D C D HC D C CH C C f D C D C C ( — H x D C H D C a H a 4 4 i C H D C o - ) l C H D C — H H D C ) l C — D C c H — r — a - l C ) . i c i a c r C ) l C D C — — r C D C a D C i j c H — D C D C i ) i c D C ) ) = D C D C D C H ) C D C — a — i c — D C - D C Q D C C r C + r H D C D C H D C H D C D C — — D C r r C C — - c c i c D C D C ) l C i H c c ) ( ) r C C r i — D C C - C ( H r C i c i c p I D C H h T c i c O C H ( H H g - ) l C r C D C C C D ( ) l C D C C ( — D C r C D C — H r C - D C D C D C 9 D C D C r C ) C c “ — - 9 ) l C : . l C D C D C D C i c D C i D C ) H D C D C - - ) l C . i C r C H H D C 1 D C 4 + r H D C L 4 a — 9 ) C H H H i c a H H D C ; D C 9 a . ) C D C H H a g - a r C - l C . o — — 1 D C H i c i C - ) C ) D C 4 ) ‘ . 4 D C i C ) \ C C i c ) D C D _ ( . • C r C H — D C D C D C H 9 ’ r D C H ) ) C j H — . H D C H — H a 8 D C z 5 - S J 7 3 00 4 0 0 o C 0 • 0 2 0 , p d a 2 0 4 t C 0 C D C m P d P h T 0 l E t D C . Q C o wC
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.