IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 2"" DAY OF DECEMBER, 2010
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.NMENUGOPALA.ۤ,C'3a'x[EII?X: , 3
WRIT PETITION NO.11096/2010
BETWEEN:
1 THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGE"R.,,._""
UNITED INDIA INSURANCECO. L_;TD., ., ,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE-III, --
CLASSIC BUILDING, NO.24, V
RICHMOND ROAD, .
BANGALORE~56QD?3.S.'*-. '
2 THE BRANCHg'MAN.AC3E'F{ _ ~_
UNITED INDIAVINiSL»I_RANCE._CO_; LTD,
DIVESIOIXEAL.QF'FICE¥I;§fI_,
CLASSIC; BUILDING, r~::O,2.4,*«..,_ .
RICHMOND RD/\.D,~.j--.,_ = '
BANGALO'RE-560 O25'.,_f._ "
- '- I »-- ...PETITIONERS
(BYSRI M.U,;fROO.NACHA,T..ADv.)
M/S HAIIIIIDU-STJA-ABA EVRON_A'UTICS LTD.,
" AEROSRACEDIvISI--O1N,>
' V.__TR'A|\1SPORT.__DEPA'RT.MENT,
*I;>_.B.I;IO.75O2,. '
~ -I\I'§-w__THIT>RASAN__DRA POST,
,3A'Nri3A.;_ORE~56OO75
'RERRES_EN_TE'D BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER (P B A) -T,
'>.f.S.F<I.VELL%MU'RUGA¥\I.S.
.T,v_(TBI¥fvI/-S;*TRSBG LAW FIRM 8L SRI TRAJARAM, ADVS.)
RESPONDENT
3. Along with the application, learned counsel who___ has
entered appearance for the petitioners has fiiejd»..:’j’4–th’=e’
memorandum of facts, wherein it is stated that, signed
statement having been delivered to him on..4.._7.O9;,.Vt’o” it
to file the same in the Court, on account of the~mispla’ci:ng,Vo:§i_i”thVéi..
case fiie in the Advocates Association,’ the sta’te.ment
could not be filed in time and__soon apft.<;;i;:,-,.:t_h~e_Vfi|e.'Was,._tra.ced i.e.,
on 8.9.09, the written statem'enét.w'a.$ been stated
that, the delay in filing'-t_he W'r'iti:.e.n¥ account of
the mispiacing of_t.he.ééfiiejand':.not__int.eti.tio'nal.m;There is nothing
on record to ijioluwbt' memorandum of facts
accompanyinothe«'.app,lica~t;ijo,n'_~..q,…i\'».'.:' .
4. ,(7°’lSid4e”i'”f’V§i’~.theA°.»fa’c.ts and circumstances of the
pr:ésVei1.t and”-t.he sltafement made in the memorandum of
facts’a_,ccom’pa:nv,ino application for condoning the delay in
ififiiing the .__vvritte.n:flstatement, I am unable to hold that, the
«pfet«i.tioners arepnot entitled to file written statement even after
the period mentioned in the proviso to O 8 R: of
. In? catena of decisions of the Apex C urt, particularly, in
9%’
As a result, the application for condoning the deiay stands
aiiowed and the written statement filed by the petitior”.e’r’s_:”i-5′
directed to be accepted and consequent
impugned order stands set aside.
The Trial Court to proceed withthe thee’:-“ing ofe’.t.i1ev”suit”.3nd
decide the same with utmost exped’i”t’i.o:n at any._e’veVai1t,.’:yvithin a
period of six months from th’fe~~..date’d’o’ftsupp’Ii’yr._of a of this
order to it.
NO ….