Allowed

Nataraju v. Manjappa

Karnataka HC19 Jun 2023RP/676/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In two connected review petitions challenging a November 2021 judgment that denied interest for a delayed appeal period, the single judge modified the order because the underlying compensation enhancement appeal was disposed of without any enhancement of the awarded compensation.

What did the court decide?

The impugned judgment dated 24.11.2021 is modified to remove the denial of interest for a period of 577 days as the enhancement of compensation has not been granted.

Nataraju Vs Manjappa — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:21091 RP No. 676 of 2022 C/W RP No. 627 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

¶7

REVIEW PETITION NO. 676 OF 2022

¶8

C/W

¶9

REVIEW PETITION NO. 627 OF 2022

¶10

IN RP 676/2022

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

NATARAJU S/O RAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS R/A THIMALAPURA VILLAGE KADUR TALUKM,GULUR POST GULUR HOBLI, TUMKUR DISTRICT-577548

¶13

…PETITIONER

¶14

(BY SRI. HARSHA Y., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SACHIN B S.,ADVOCATE)

¶15

Digitally signed by DHANALAKSHMI MURTHY Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶16

AND:

¶17

MANJAPPA

¶18

AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS FATHER S NAME NOT GIVEN IN THE PETITION ARASIKERE DEPOT KSRTC HASSAN DISTRICT-573103.

¶19

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER KSRTC CHIKKAMAGALURU DIVISION CHIKKAMAGALURU BUS STAND CHIKKAMAGALURU -577101

¶20

REP BY CHIEF LAW OFFICER

¶21

¶22

NC: 2023:KHC:21091 RP No. 676 of 2022 C/W RP No. 627 of 2022

¶23

KSRTC H ROAD BANGALORE-560027.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI.AMITH DESHPANDE .,ADVOCATE)

¶26

THIS REVIEW PETITION UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 R/W SECTION 114 OF CPC 1908, PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TOA) REVIEW THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONBLE COURT DATED 24/11/2021 IN MFA NO. 47/2020.B) GRANT SUCH OTHER AND FURTHER RELIEFS WHICH THIS HONBLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶27

IN RP 627/2022 BETWEEN:

¶28

NATARAJU S/O RAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/A THIMALAPURA VILLAGE KADUR TALUK,GULUR POST GULUR HOBLI, TUMKUR DISTRICT-577548

¶29

…PETITIONER

¶30

(BY SRI. HARSHA Y., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SACHIN B S.,ADVOCATE)

¶31

AND:

¶32

1. MANJAPPA

¶33

AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS FATHER S NAME NOT GIVEN IN THE PETITION ARASIKERE DEPOT KSRTC HASSAN DISTRICT-573103.

¶34

¶35

NC: 2023:KHC:21091 RP No. 676 of 2022 C/W RP No. 627 of 2022

¶36

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER KSRTC CHIKKAMAGALURU DIVISION CHIKKAMAGALURU BUS STAND CHIKKAMAGALURU -577101 REP BY CHIEF LAW OFFICER KSRTC H ROAD BANGALORE-560027.

¶37

…RESPONDENTS

¶38

(BY SRI.AMITH DESHPANDE .,ADVOCATE)

¶39

THIS REVIEW PETITION UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 R/W SECTION 114 OF CPC 1908, PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO A) REVIEW THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONBLE COURT DATED 24/11/2021 TO THE EXTENT OF DECLINING TO GRANT INTEREST FOR DELAYED PERIOD OF 577 DAYS IN MFA NO. 7148/2018. B) GRANT SUCH OTHER AND FURTHER RELIEFS WHICH THIS HONBLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶40

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶41

ORDER

¶42

These review petitions are filed seeking review of the

¶43

judgment dated 24.11.2021 passed by this Court in MFA No.7148/2018 c/w MFA No.47/2020.

¶44

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:21091 RP No. 676 of 2022 C/W RP No. 627 of 2022

¶45

The learned counsel for the petitioner-claimant

¶46

submits that while disposing of the appeals, the appeal filed by the claimant i.e., MFA No.47/2020 seeking enhancement of compensation has been disposed of and there is no enhancement of compensation awarded by this Court. Moreover the compensation awarded by the Tribunal has been reduced by this Court. Therefore, denying interest for a period of 577 days in filing the appeal, does not arise. Therefore, he sought for modification of the judgment dated 24.11.2021.

¶47

The learned counsel for the respondent-KSRTC has not objected for the same.

¶48

Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the impugned judgment dated 24.11.2021.

¶49

The appeal filed by the claimant i.e., MFA No.47/2020 seeking enhancement of compensation has been disposed of and there is no enhancement of compensation granted by this Court. Therefore, in the

¶50

NC: 2023:KHC:21091 RP No. 676 of 2022 C/W RP No. 627 of 2022

¶51

¶52

operative portion of the impugned judgment, denying interest to the claimant for a period of 577 days in filing the appeal, does not arise.

¶53

Hence, the impugned judgment dated 24.11.2021 passed by this Court in MFA No.7148/2018 c/w MFA No.47/2020 is modified to the extent stated herein above.

¶54

Accordingly, the review petitions are allowed.

¶55

Sd/JUDGE

¶56

¶57

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25

Nataraju v. Manjappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nataraju v. Manjappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Shanthamma Vs Sri Arasappa

Sri. Harish Vs Smt. Girija

Sri Rudrachar Vs Sri Surappa

N S Tulasi Vs Smt Saroja Bai

Sri P K Narasimhaiah Vs Sri P K Varadaraju

Sri Doddakariyappa Vs Sri Manjunatha