BELGAUM v. NOTICE TO R1-DISPENSED WITH)
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
Therefore, the appeal stands dismissed for non-
Provisions considered
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 s. 173(1)
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. Therefore, the appeal stands dismissed for non- prosecution. RH CT-MCK/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20 Sd/- (CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE
Judgment
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 24084 OF 2013 (MV-D) BETWEEN:
1. SHRI DEELIP S/O. BHIMASHI SALUNKE, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: FABRICATOR, R/O. NH-4 ROAD PUNNASWAMY GOUDAR CHAWL, BELGAUM.
2. SMT. CHANDA W/O. DEELIP SALUNKE, AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. NH-4 ROAD PUNNASWAMY GOUDAR CHAWL, BELGAUM. …APPELLANTS (BY SMT. SHAILA BELLIKATTI, ADVOCATE) AND:
SHRI MOHAMMED NOOR S/O. MOHAMMED BASHEER, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS MAN, R/O. NO.4 MAVALI TANK BUND ROAD, JOURNALIST COLONY, J.C. ROAD, BANGALORE. ND MARG BALLARD ESTATE MUMBAI-400001. GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:13984 MFA No. 24084 of 2013 HC-KAR (OWNER OF ASHOK LEYLAND TRUCK NO. KA46/869)
THE RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE AT BANGALORE HAVING ITS REGD OFFICE AT 19, RELIANCE CENTRE WALCHAND HIRACHAND MARG BALLARD ESTATE MUMBAI-400001 (INSURER OF ASHOK LEYLAND TRUCK NO.KA46/869) (BY SRI. SURESH S. GUNDI, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1-DISPENSED WITH) …RESPONDENTS THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD BY ENHANCING COMPENSATION IN M.V.C.NO.618/2011 DATED 08.05.2012 PASSED BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER FAST TRACK III-COURT AND MACT, BELAGUM UNDER ALL PERMISSIBLE HEADS. [[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[ THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:13984 MFA No. 24084 of 2013 HC-KAR CORAM: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) Miss. Shaila Bellikatti learned counsel for appellants submits that she has no instructions from the appellants. She further states that the appellants appear to have no interest to pursue the appeal. Learned counsel thereby seeks to pass necessary orders.
2. In the light of the submission thus made by the learned counsel for the appellants and as the appellants did not choose to pursue the matter since 2013, this Court is of the view that the appeal need not be carried forward through adjournments.
Operative part
Therefore, the appeal stands dismissed for non- prosecution. RH CT-MCK/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20 Sd/- (CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Therefore, 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.