New India Assurance Company Ltd vs Ramalingu on 2 June, 2009

'V V'  _ 1. V-':}R:§an:3-élingu

 3. Smtlayamma

IN THE HIGH coupcr OF KARNATAKA AT  
DATED THIS THE 2nd DAYAQF4     '
BEFOREH-.V  H AL   % 
THE HOWBLE MR. JUSTIC>E'V%ih.WuVgNfi'GQ?gi.:HA':._QewbA

 

Miscelianeous First gggeamjg 9750 éF'2go57(Mv)
BETWEEN:      " 'A 

New India Assurance Cd"mpa'ny"L§d_., I  

Represented by' 'tghfi Deputy 'Managér; . _ 

No. 2--B, U_n.§ty 44BE3j§d_in'g_;\n:1.exe;  .

Mission Read,  »    

BangaIore~27., ,   '  ..AF'F'ELLANT '

(By Sf£--R'; 3aiprafVk§éj$h'TA.d:v';

. Son of Lin-ge gowda,
 _iV3ajc«:,%Bs;i2.i.n'd. Poiice Station,
._  .Sat:§ni_::'._.__ Kahakapura Tq,

' .__Ban§.a¥c'rgDist.

 Smt. B. Vimala
"  AA .-Wife'"of Yatiraj, Ma or,
'  Dgbto. 1446/B, 11 Cross,
. II Main, I Phase, 3.P.Nagar,
? Bangalore.

Wife of Gurusiddachari,
No. 209/3, Beiongs to Rarnappa
Manchegowdanakoppai



dispensation of notice to respondents fa. angifl

considered and ailowed by an order
Noticing the fact that, steps have;’JnAot:’bee”n_ V
the L.Rs. of respondent 3 on

8.4.2009 that the appeal agaitnstt”respondent3.=

3. In the appeai :th.ete 3 respondents.
Notice to respo_ndent5.~’1″en£1 2′ .y’wa_s’.dispeitsed with as per
the The’ has abated insofar

as the claimant *

In viewutof the”‘éjt;ove+”‘*-t:h.£s’appeal is liable to be
dismissecj, 3 3
3 fiiroeried.ejocorfdingly.
sc1I-

]u<3C3e '