High Court Karnataka High Court

United India Insurance Co Ltd vs Rajesh G S/O Gangappa on 25 November, 2010

Karnataka High Court
United India Insurance Co Ltd vs Rajesh G S/O Gangappa on 25 November, 2010
Author: S.N.Satyanarayana
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY 0:: NOVEMBER 
BEFORE ' H' 'T V'
THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE S.N.  4. _ 3
WRIT PETITION No. 30316   ICML§.Ac:If    .V 

BETWEEN: , 
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE co.'IT,TI3,
'MANANDI' COURT, 346:I7:01,  _ 
27TH CROSS, JAYANAGARIII W BLOCK, 
BANALoRE----560 011  ;   *
REP. BY DIVISIONAL MANAG_ER}~--.  

V   PETITIONER

AND

1. 0,, RAJESH._;"_W1i:fl0§J-
mo GANGAPPA, _
 "  1  .. ..... V'
.  BY--NAT_URAL GUARDEAN
A   I3/IA.I'oRII "  

' ._ 'II/£QT1'LII«iI,2;_ EMT. VENKATAMMA,
'R/O: KALANAGARA COLONY.
JAKFiASANDRA~PALYA.
KA:::AB.A HOBLI.

 .. {ON KUNIGAL A NELAi\/EANGALA

NE: 48 ROAD),

'   NELAMANGALA TALUK.

;,U\,?

 



2. RAMESH B.M
(MAJOR)
N053, SY, NO. 18/].
BASAVANAPURA.
GOTTEGERE.
P.B.G. ROAD,
BANGALORE DIST.
BANGALORE.

[BY SR1 AS. GIRISH, ADV. I+'Q_R~.__R], " NOTICE  IS
DISPENSED WITH VIDE COURT ORDER DT._1 5.1-:.2'Q10)
THIS WRIT PETITI-C)N F11.ED'*UN--D_ER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONS__'I'1TU'.1'ION "O_Ii"V.INDIA PRAYING TO
ISSUE A WRIT OF' MANDAMUS ,D:IREC'FI_1'€,G'»»THE COURT IN
EXECASE NO. 1775/0SV,V_'PDRM1T THE1..'j=E*~r1TIONER TO
DEPOSIT THE AWARD AMO'UI¥T'PASSED._IN MVC2756/06
SUBSEQUENT:'TO;_-"THE._ R€E=DEPOSI'P.._Q.F THE AMOUNT
WRONGLY DIS'BUR_S"ED   CLAIMANT IN MVC NO.

2%/DATA.       '.
THIS" PETITTOANV 'O*<:.OA:v1;NO ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING Tms DAY, TPIE EQURT 1\/{ADE THE FOLLOWING:
 " ' 'ORDER

 Se_e<A:On"cVi'V'r'<:SpOndent in MVC NO.2756/06 has

  Seeking direction to MACT, Bangalore

 Iv]}"t:O_. fiennit the petitioner to deposit the award

O33-«.__"amOun't..VV__AfnasSed in MVC NO.2756/O6 Subsequent to

"""\O

  



executing Court to withhold issue of warrant untilvthe

claimant in MVC No.2"/56/O4 redeposits 

amount wrongly released in his favour.

5. Heard the counsel ""«.ap.plearing_V'A' -ford 

petitioner and respondent.   the  

annexed to the petition. is no
justification in the praver petitioner.
Admittedly, number is
made by the its inadvertence
and ” of the petitioner the
first respondent should not be made to

suffers. . 31ence,”» _ this ‘Court find that there is no

direct the executing Court to withhold

tile”-warra:i1t_iasvued for recovery of the award amount.

_Thisd”-Court’vwhi1e dismissing this petition direct the

it pertitioner herein to deposit the entire award amount

interest in MVC No.2756/O6 in favour of the first

“”””\

respondent within four weeks from the date of receipt» of

copy of order passed in this Writ V.

waiting for recovery of the award axnouhtl

released to Claimant in MVC No.2? It

clarified that the proceedings. tnitieited–.by the };3:e’tit1’o1ae’rt ‘V

herein for recovery of the said :-rgotlicorhe in
the way of the first respeondehttd evrieetxte the
movable Warrant in 2008 on
flmfibofMAGT®C¢§1Hs}”§f7ad?

AccoI*c§1:ij:u1g;1_44§’,’f;.”:VV. J Igetition is dismissed

withoutaemy _ord’er_aas.. to e _–

t”dto! eeeee ggg-

JUDGE

Bws’