Dismissed

Omkara Reddy S/O. G.S. Gurumurty @ Venkatesh Reddy v. the Branch Manager

Karnataka HC24 Sept 2013WP/76377/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an order dismissing his application for release of a fixed deposit amount. The court held that the petitioner failed to prove the investment proposal was in the minor's interest due to lack of supporting material and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed. The order dated 15.06.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was not interfered with.

Omkara Reddy S/O. G.S. Gurumurty @… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2013)

¶1

: 1 :

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE H.N.NAGAMOHAN DAS

¶6

WRIT PETITION No. 76377/2013 (GM-AC)

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

KUMAR. OMKAR REDDY S/O. G S GURUMURTY @ VENKATESH REDDY, AGE MINOR REP. BY HIS MOTHER AMBUJA @ AMBUJAKSHI W/O. G S VENKATESH REDDY @ G S GURUMURTY AGE MAJOR, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O. I.U.D.P. LAYOUT 8^TH CROSS, CHITRADURGA DIST. CHITRADURGA. … PETITIONER (BY Sri. GIRISH S HIREMATH, ADV.)

¶9

AND : --------

¶10

THE BRANCH MANAGER THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE CLUB ROAD BELGAUM – 590 002. … RESPONDENT

¶11

: 2 :

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA WITH A PRAYER TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 15.06.2012 PASSED IN MVC No. 2787/2005 AND ETC.

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

In this writ petition the petitioner has called in question the order dated 15.06.2012 in MVC No. 2787/2005 passed by MACT at Bailhongal.

¶16

The Tribunal while allowing MVC No. 2787/2005 directed to keep the amount of Rs.75,000/- in fixed deposit in the name of the minor petitioner No. 3 in the claim petition. In the year 2011 the petitioner filed an application for release of the amount in fixed deposit and the same came to be rejected by the Tribunal on 05.05.2011. Again the petitioner filed another application for the same relief and the same came to be dismissed under the impugned order. It is seen from the record that the petitioner wanted release of

¶17

the amount on the ground that the same is to be invested in purchasing a site in the name of minor petitioner No.3 in the claim

¶18

: 3 :

¶19

petition. The details of the site, consent of the owner of the site, the price and draft agreement are not produced before the Tribunal. It is not shown as to how it will be beneficial to the interest of the minor child. In the absence of any such material the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is in accordance with law. I find no justifiable ground to interfere with the same. Accordingly, the writ petition is hereby dismissed without reference to the respondent.

¶20

SD/JUDGE

¶21

Lrs.

Omkara Reddy S/O. G.S. Gurumurty @ Venkatesh Reddy v. the Branch Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Omkara Reddy S/O. G.S. Gurumurty @ Venkatesh Reddy v. the Branch Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Veerappa Shankarappa Sajjannav Vs the Dy Commr for Transports Be

Shivappa Muniyappa Pathroti Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Hasanmiya S/O Mahammad Sab Badiger Vs Somayya Karnool

Devappa S/O. Ningappa Amatur Vs the State of Karnataka

Mallappa Yallappa Hubballi, Vs the Tahashildar

Hasiru Vividhoddesha Souharda Sahakari Niymaita Vs the Cooperative Election Commissioner