High Court Karnataka High Court

The Managing Director vs Smt Hemavathi on 11 April, 2008

Karnataka High Court
The Managing Director vs Smt Hemavathi on 11 April, 2008
Author: Mohan Shantanagoudar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARHATRKA AT BAR(}aI.:QRE
mmn THIS 'mm 1 rm my 03* APRIL, zma 

BEFORE

THE Hfawam MR. JUSTICE MORAN      

 

Tm nwmamcs nmmma, L  
KAHIATAICASTATE    
1RAHsPoRTcoR9oRATze3.     k % j
KHRam,sHAN'maGAR-,k  *    

THRQUGI-I TIE  Law cawxafsra -.....--...AP'PELL.fiNT %

[BY am.     

A&

1.

amt. I-I2,nKaVim’§¢;’d% %
mo nmsasxm Ks wmatmanm,

a.caEDu&Bc;<::': 2:3

"2, BABY Marmsnwmx,

pic: 1:1-:c;;ms*:;r;:% s MAHJURA'1'fiA,

AGED ancxswssyaans,

_ %
j * 'mus: DECEMED K s MAHJUHA'I'HA,
* %A<;Ep "ABflJU'I' 3 YEARS,

..__ ¢i.; em. A8!-WJATI-IA}!-EMA,
.fi}"I~O Kv ,

AGED Aacxrrss YEARS,

5. K V

510 mm vanxm”

new AECIJTSB YEARS,

smcs Rnsmnmzrrrs 2 Alma

smcm muons, as wmmmma

Bzmz Rmszmn an-ma %
MOITER-CUM-IHEDIR mammn
cum FIRSTRESPCKDENT

am. mmvnrrm.

ALLAM NT R10?

DOOR Nc2.1+35._
KOLAR C:I’IY&I)lS’I’RICT, A % %
PIN – 553 1:11. L A

‘I11′: under
Sectsion 173(1) of M.¥’.fl¢:{;;_: and
award dated ‘HQ.’ 797%; 2005
an the fileofth-‘.j-. __ – filnurt af Email
Canaan, MambeI;”!&£&.C’1″, Bangalore,
(SCCH No.17’), af mm af

R…5,9s,mo;- &%”}$.a. from the date gr j

an for orflm this day. was
Court.

aL§_.E9..il’

is film! by ma KSRKJ – appallant
” reduction” af ummpensatinn awaxciead by the

W

.4. .-.._..-u. nu;-gun l..l\Il_.Il|_)|I\Il_l\l Il\ I\ll’\I\l’\ lll’\llI I.I\lI..l’lI.lll\I\J\I I,.¢’\ IIE\lIl I-l’\II-.lII-.lLl\!\J\I Il’\ t’\Il”II’\’\ lI£\’I

~24

r1g12tlyhsaldthatthedr1ver:ofthebuafiso1e1y-

reapozruihia {hr the accident in quweftiunn.

..1 The dmaed was jum; 33 ymm at 3 T

aafidn” nt. He: was Warlmg’ in

list of a Vwarldng in is V

the Supfirintesfient est’ Exciae’v’VL’L’z¥_Vs;’ Thc

deomezd *3 aim: shown _

in Same}: Aahsak Bar ia
e::am1m:’ :1 a3 the awed
was Ma Hnwavczr, the
Tribunal has gr the % sdewaaad
mere};-* at Ru.3,fiCIZ}}’ ap% to

be on Baétaziivvggg mid amunt, thy:

afififéwbfi m be said to be an that

F 2 is filed with a deny of 374 days. L

amiqmw by thus appellart — KSRDC ‘ms

V”

§

tlmt am cleiay has evmurmd baamuaa of nun-film at” the:

appficatian far abtaifi mafia mpy

Fwmribefi pearixaci of lmitafimn. Such an _

mum be said tn be ‘valid mpmmmu, :m%%mtjin J

dffiputes tram the agpellant Wm

Axiv&!3u befum tin Court m’.Ld7t}1§ wmsv:

c-E on. 95.11.2996 were ” the
applicatitm for getfitlg fifiad after
the lapse of mm. mu» :.’*.:”£3;af.~ .j1′..’.ve.V,,’– Q1v.’§.§’T2é$7, which

means» the f;s:.’}b§$§ii.’V’seven mxzntw

afizer ‘tlrm ths duty at’ a party _

m flrw 1i:£ ga:;a§:% {~a;2;;;kmfyznzwm am this rzmtterj ‘ho

mquim 7 &1ca’ ny. The appenant

?’atatui¢zj§ __g;u}£hwarity mnmt lmap quita by

‘kfitm fan the Admmm. Them cmxxmt be –

as mammal by mm am}! having

‘ 2~’ ‘i.==;=sIa”‘ .Vn:$m:ra . In tifim um”. af tha maxim’, the

afihrud by man KERN mxmt be accepted. –
app.-:1 fails an. the mum of deiay aha. j

. V u um falbwing ardm” is taxider-

x/3