✦ Karnataka High Court · 16 Nov 2011

Sri Younus sb Gousemodin Aralikatti v. Sri Mahaboobsab

MEMBER M.F.A No. 21960 of 2009MOHAN SHANTANAGOUDAR5 min read

Judgment

1.

Sri Mahaboobsab S/o Khadarsab Mulla, Age: Major, 0cc.: Agriculture & Business, r/o Hanshi, Post: Shirakol, Tal. Navalgund, Dist. Dharwad (owner of Bajaj Tempo Ti-ax Bearing No.KA-25/ N-4280.)

2.

The Divisional Manager. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Il Floor. Enkav Complex, Keshwapur. Hubli. Dist. Dhanvad (insurer of Bajaj Tempo Trax bearing No.1(425/ N-4280.) IBv Shri N.R. Kuppelur. Advocate for R2) - Respondents - a > O H O H O H a a — O H O H O H O H O H . — O H a _ ) C ) C O H ) C , -0j . a a O H O H ) C - a - a - a . ) C ) C ) C 5 o w P O H - a - a . 5 ) C O H . ) ) C C C O H - ) C . - a O H ) ) C - a O H ) C 9 5 C ) C ‘ _ C J — : a O H O H ) C - a — - a O H ) ) C C - a O H 2 P P O H . - a ) C ) C O H ) C ) C C - a - a . . . . . . . . P - a - - a O H O H C ) C ) C - a - a O H - a - a - a ) C 0 - a - a O H . - a ) C O H ) C C ) C - a - 2 - a D ) C a - O H a — O H 0 ) C O H > O H O H O H ) C ) C — ) C - a ) C - a ) ) C C O H - a . O H ) C ) C 0 - a — i - ) C ) ) C C O H ) C O H ) C O H - a ) C 0 ) C ) ) C O H ) C ) ) C C ) C H C 5 . - a ) C i r - a O H ) C O H O H ) C c O H j H ) C O H Q ) C - a O H ) C ) C - a ) C ) C O H O H ) C - a ) C - a O H 2 J O H - . O H ) C — C ) C ) C ) ) C C H ) C . . J N - P ) ) C C ) C ) O H ) C O H ) P C . - a O H O H ) C - a , — ) C 1 ) C N ) C - a - a - a S H a 0 0 - a O H ) - a C - O H ) C . O H . O H ) C O H . - a O H . t . ) ( - a ( P H ) C - a 4 i c D C H i c D C 1 i c ) C i c D C i c ) I ( = . i c D C C C i c D C ) C ) C r - ) C i - D C H I i c i — C . c r ) C c < D C D C i c C C . ; : c ) C i c D C ) C D C — ) C i D C i c ) C ) C - ) C . i c a i c — i c — i c D C D C C C i c i c c ) C ) C r i c a a D C i c c - r * r i c + i — - ) i C C - D C i c D C o i c ) C i c i c i c i c i c D C ) C i c D C i c P i i C ( D C D C C C i D i c i c D C i c D C D C D C t r i c D C C r c i c h t i c ) C C C i c C c i c D C C C D D C ) ) D C i - i c i c D1 C D C ) C i c H D C i c D C D C c C C i c D C i c a H i a c C C D C D C ) C D C ) C i c j - D C C ) C - ) C ± r a i c D c C i c i c D C a a . C c ) ) C C i c ) C C C p i - c ) C D C i . — c ) C i c D C P i c C c D C i c ) C L ) C C c ) C g i c C C a ) C — r i c a - C C ) C i c D C E ) U U C y . c i C D

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.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Karnataka High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. MEMBER M.F.A No. 21960 of 2009). ← Search more judgments