Loading...

Smt Kiran D Shetty D/O Lt Raghuram … vs Sri G M Chariabba S/O Sayyed Beary on 26 November, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Smt Kiran D Shetty D/O Lt Raghuram … vs Sri G M Chariabba S/O Sayyed Beary on 26 November, 2009
Author: Ajit J Gunjal
I
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 267" DAY OF NOVEMBER 2009
BEFORE

THE HONBLE Mr.JUSTICE AJIT J.GUNg._IAL:' ~ ,

WRIT PETITION N'0.34609 or 2oo9(sMlA/Q  A  I

BE}! WEEN:

Smt.Kiran D Shetty,  _

D/0.1ate Raghuram Shetty, I  

Aged 35 years,  

R/a Kailkere, Molahallj Vi11age--,--  

Kundapura Taluk.   _ ,  ~  

Udupi District. " "  "    " jf sA.,,I.';r>,ET1T1oNER

[Sri Pundikai 1,s;iW;,;ra fE3III§it_;*V:,:A<i:V;:},O' ?  

AND: 

1. Sri   
S /0 _Sayy"sd_ Beary,  
M;i§,vir:a.katt€," Kuazdgtpura Taluk,

 A U.d'up'iV.D'isjtriCt.  """ "

 3,2,"  II:\Te9.;.ti'oai13:.1I"jtnsurance C0. Ltct,

- AI\/I--u11iV(:'i;'a[;:-J Road.
i£t1n(I£:1p_11'j1.*.2A1 Branch,
Kunctapura ~ 576 201.

 _ Rep.-by its Manager. ...RESPONDE-NTS

  "  his writ petition is fiied under Articles 226 and 227
 oflthe Constitution of India praying to quash the order
I'  ..dated 26.10.2009 passed by the District Judge & MACT.



Ix)

Kundapura, on I.A.No.l2 in MVC No./470/2002 vide
Annexure-A. ._

This writ petition coming on for preliininarfi
this day, the Court made the following: "   " '~ 

The petitioner is a elaimant.:=, :an

accident. A claim petition is*lod_gedV." '-Dxuringpitiipepepndencyli*

of the proceedings, an ap_p1'i-ciation lpfvnilecii by the
respondent to summorna  said application

was granted. A :3econd”‘apf§licati’on is moved for an

identical I’€_l4.1’_.rg.§–f.4 l;’)1(3f_,i.'[1()__I1€’§’1′.” objection. But

however, the” ‘ix/litvhdrawn. Another
application «filed :.»of the third respondent
against whom th=e_cla.im petition is dismissed for identical

relief for-summoningllthenritness. Learned member of the

Triliiinall application but however makes an

ivT”-V’obse’rvat.ion order passed on I.A~lO should be

«. ../’,T§:~’§p1′<,_f_.(;,'VI1 effect' to} /fl

/Z'

2. Mr.Pundikai Ishwara Bhat, learned counsel

appearing for t.he petitioner submits that the

application is rejected, the Tribunal

directed summons to the witness.

3. Apparently, it is to be n0ti’eed.A_A_thatthe ‘a.pp1i<3atibn_V

I.A–12 is rejected but howedverrwith the that

the order passed on I./.t'x.~_.i.() g1ven"effee§t to. I do
not see how these the petitioner's
interest. Having I am of the
Vi€W that it
Petitioh. stands Iaearned Member of the
Tribunal XshaliL\"C0_hQ11i'de'*.the proceedings within three

Lf1br1ths"ifrbn1-ethexdated Aofrevceipt of a copy of this order.

Sd/-~ _;

JUDGE ‘

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information