IN THE may mum on xaamzraxa « ..
DATED THIS THE 192:: DAY:”0F”DEGEMBER~ J
PRESEI§’FV_’ _ j
me HOWBLE MR.Ju$§frzcE ti’I«;&:t;faasK
‘THE HoN’3LE.V£4:2.au§3*;V’;é,§fi’%
“.M.F.:A;N(‘.§:; Fk2oc:4%
8 N: .
RANJAL 31.13239 “‘1;’%HEf!Q¥_
24Y12s,j .
s/0 f-‘?.M.SH._ENQY’ = —-
‘LAKSH!eff.NARASIMHAg’~._
svnnznnm THIRTHA imaxga
KUN’JIBE’I’1’U’-, – V
UDUPiA.V—~-.57610.’£~.A APPELLANT
‘ :13?’ V;<§i21i…m1¢.pA'rH was snmw, PANDURANGA av. &
1:)A¥.gNa.a§r;A%:<,_,r3.?’I*I<I¥IoN To THE APPELLANT HEREIN T0
PRESEIIT THE SAMKEEFCIRE THE AUTHORITIES UNDER THE 52.91
. _;.'i*H:§§";a.IéI*I%'.;§I.I;?c0MING on FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, DEEPAK
vEmA;J.. DELNERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGHEHT
is an appeal filed tmder Section 173(1) me
. Vehicles Act, 1988 against the {mder dated
6/9/2004 passed by MACT, Udupi, in MVC.No.775/2003.
The Tribunal had decided Issue No.3 as a preliminary
W
not able: to persuade ourselves to accept –« ..
advanced by the learned counsel 4′ X: T
3. Even otherwise, it iseenot a of v
justice have been shut for to the
nature of the case he been
directed to approaeh Hence, we do
not find any ‘oigt’ The order
does not In this
View of the opinion that appeal has
We
no merit it is’-.he:fehy”cL\3§209a{c9..With no order as to
costs. ; ‘ ‘V
it is clarified, koe-p1ng’ in mind interest
of in case the appellant fiies an
.’ te’ ‘ before the Authcutities appointed
‘ ” ‘jo;_zV:vider; within a period of 30 days hereof, then the
should not be dismissed on the ground of delay or
but would still be considered on mmits in
yaeoozfianoe with law.
‘ i