In an appeal filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Karnataka High Court at Gulbarga dismissed the appeal on 12.2.2013 for failure to comply with a notice requiring office objections within two weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JULY 2013
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. ABDUL NAZEER
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.30877/2012 (MV)
BETWEEN:
Vishal S/o. Dada Lokhande Age: 20 years Occ: Student & Paper Vendor And agriculture R/o. Post: Shivangi Tq: and Dist: Bijapur …. APPELLANT (By Sri. P.S. Patil, Adv.)
AND:
2
This appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated28.9.2011 in MVC No. 1375/2010 on the file of the MACT No.VI, Bijapur and etc.
This appeal coming on for Orders this day, the Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
On 29.1.2013, two weeks time was granted for compliance of office objections, failing which, the appeal would stand dismissed. The appeal stood dismissed on 12.2.2013 as the office objections have not been complied with by then. Therefore, no further orders are necessary.
Ordered accordingly. No costs.
Cs/-
Sd/JUDGE.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Vishal S/o. Dada Lokhande
Balasaheb S/o. Bapusaheb Patil
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
S. ABDUL NAZEER
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
