High Court Karnataka High Court

The National Insurance Co Ltd vs Nagareddi @ Channareddi on 8 April, 2008

Karnataka High Court
The National Insurance Co Ltd vs Nagareddi @ Channareddi on 8 April, 2008
Author: N.K.Patil


mm THE HIGH cuunm or xnnmamaxn, nnnannonn ‘ “.

nnman THIS THE B”‘nmv 03 APRIL 2oo&_W ; g”

, EEFDRE

THE HflN’BhE MR. ausT1cn;”fi;x¢zam1L«if[

CIVIL PETITION ue.16§{éafii

B THEM!

was mamzeugu :asuaaacsV~~ v.’

ran: LTD DIVISI UNM:._ H.F¢iA*SERV ._ . .
.l’E.lliL1.I..|n’.JJ.’J.’..H..n.l.t 6″” lJJuuJ!I .’J’U[fl.l7£;. $;>’J’.l”B..|’.aI..fl.TJj = ‘

F B Hu.9229 KoLKATTa-?1i;:THRnUaH_L

Efifi SI fiiifib Fifiiifiéfii’ ‘irift7″1″””JZ:’ji-ifiii-_
CU.LTD., £ILB$UNB: GUMPuEE”QEB HINI
VIHHAHA_saUmaa,suuuAaaA_,jwfinpucfi ITS
mnsxnmmn mFFIcm_mmgi44_suHanxnM conpnnx
anmaanoR3*«f,” « =IaA”.,; PETITIONER

<13? an? ; Snncfifiram R LATHIA,AflV.)

MEQAREDfiI,@'GHmHHAfiEHnI
ago vsfixnnsnnx Tfifififififlfifli

'BBEHVABQUT 57 YRS

.A".@CC_HiL_";

_ “_EfAT HEAR D3REAR HOUSE

‘maarun:aA1
WW6 fififlflflfiflfll E CHNNAREEDI THRHHGUDNI

JaHEu»AnouT so vns

A’a$g MIL

=flEAT HEAR DARBAR HUU$E

1::-r -1-1-an
.u..LU.r’I..t.’u

m%_ ‘« fif juatica and equity.

4 Mrs K P R TRAVELS
FRDP E.V.3HIVRJI
anwwi mwmn
vnnalnm ,>, ‘, ‘ ,=*; V ;

auunnasn DIST ‘_”;,. ‘g5sRp@nzHTsw’

THIS CIVIL PETITION fFiLEb[.fi7a.24 VbF cpc,
PE%3I%Q Tfl TE%N5FER H¥€1~.9flH23G5f§3fiUIfl$ BEFORE

THE MAET. BIJAPUR T0 ‘THE ‘cou3$”€¢E:.PRL.cIvIL
J5BEE¢fiR.fiIVfi.i av CJfiF”E~fifiKfiu1_EfifiALKfiT, IE’ TEE
INTEREST my JUETIQE-Afln gnu1Tv;=f. ‘

THIS crfiiL. PfiTiTi¢$*–céMiye.’on FOR onnnns
THIS nav, THE Uaufii ManE*THE FopLowING:

_ { o #i:3 fl
Thuu§h”thi§ m§tt§r>”ia listed far non-
complianca éf tna7 chug}. dated 11.2.2003, it is

Cxhaa:u én3=takpn fi§”fbb final disposal.

” ‘s, iuH’§h§ instant Civil Petition the
V ‘gati§i¢ner’ fiés sought for transfer of MVC
“~3Ffa§;9e;2b@&: yending an the file of the MEET,
x«°$ijh§uE tn tha Court af the Principal civil Judge

‘i”v§$;§ mn.1 S CJH & MACT, Eagalkat, in the interest

/
/’.lTL___…

I

3. Thia Cnurt on 11.2.2008, has granted t§nT

days time at request, ta take necessary ata§sfit5; ‘

serve notice an the unwsarved re3pundent§givta fiR’K

and alau permitted the counse1;dfipea;ing,£§£_fine?x

getitiunar ts take out notice»°;d¥ é@rfi6_ on,;th§>L

gagnga; apgagging :9: the _Easpanagntg w1*,EfiW’4

“‘»_ceunsel

nutica to the uy«fiarweu”z§sfim§d§5ifi E E0 3, may
be di$yensa@_k¥§t§: gm ;fie: géfigfid fifiat: a similar
matteu hag’ b§$fii_¢i§Qa§éd;t§f §f this court in
CIVIL PfiTT;fiM* sQ;i$afiéfi@T_ 1%” the case of £38
zmrrmaaz r vs. ILIIAS Arm

..Tr;e;4?¢~r.§rsa,.V’– 3.1::-efisubmitteci that the order

5sflateq i1;E,2QQE ¢&?”bé dispensed with.

‘tfiijbmissian made by the learned

V counfiél v£m@§%ring far the petitionar aa stated

“”55fafi¢vg is mlaced an record. The cmmpliance of the

:;u}::3%a;:._.}9:aa1:.a..:: 11.2.2nne is diapanaad with at the

R =ris% mf tha caunsal apgaaring far tha petitioner.

/
/3::___.

I

E___ In fhg linhf nf’ +5 in urrhm-Eu:-afinn mm:-in D-nr
1-5 all’? TI. “.3

1*’-.5. 1 .gg.a|1I-cu:-I..u.u-I Jinan: 11-¢.¢.n.T euumvnnnn-un-I-:3 1I|..Ir ‘anti -L-I-nu. —‘ml–‘
‘Ill-I77 -l-|9»Vfi’n .IJ’1.Tr|-.-I ‘hr’-J’uI”.J9WJ- 4.1.13 J-‘J-L U119 F3 UL ‘V

1 _ ,1, _

anfi 33 *ha Bubjéc.

matter invnlvefi 1n thefia ¢a$§afV,A

ara fiiractry cavarad by the MCP Nh;1§Bf2h0?

diapamd mf on 13.2.2009 in thé: cg.s§fiV §£f.”a:.:at:i.’.:aV:rs;,1_.

Inauranca flo.Ltrd., vs. Iliyas and athéreg anfi

fallmwing the aaid order, afihg ihsténfi Vfiivil
Petitimn ia liable to be di$mi#s%¢{ ~

Fur the ceaficns:3tat§fi;V§hi§ Civii Fetition
i3 dismissed. as? dav§ifi_ 05 jmgrifié. Ordered

accorflingly;~,5C

U:

.91
i

t.—I

p1¥_”