High Court of KarnatakaMiscellaneous First AppealNo. 2899 of 2013 The court dismissed the appeal filed in 2013 for non-prosecution as the appellant appeared neither in person nor via video conferencing after summons.
Appeal dismissed for non-prosecution.
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.
NC: 2024:KHC:11525 MFA No. 2899 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2899 OF 2013(MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SRI. RAMAIAH @ MATTA S/O HONNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/A AJJANAHALLI VILLAGE, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. P.SHIVAKUMAR., ADVOCATE [ABSENT])
AND:
Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. LAKSHMINARASAPPA., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. A.M.VENKATESH., ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. SHYAM PRASAD., ADVOCATE FOR R2[ABSENT])
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:05.12.2012
NC: 2024:KHC:11525 MFA No. 2899 of 2013
PASSED IN MVC NO.6886/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL JUDGE, MACT, BANGALORE.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Though matter called twice, there is no representation on behalf of the appellant, either personally or through video conferencing.
Sri.Lakshminarasappa., learned counsel on behalf of Sri.A.M.Venkatesh., for respondent No.1 has appeared through video conferencing.
As could be seen from the appeal papers, the appeal is filed in the year 2013. Now we have almost completed three months in the year 2024. the appeal is pending for almost eleven years.
As already noted above, though matter called twice, there is no representation on behalf of the appellant, either personally or through video conferencing. It appears that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Hence,
NC: 2024:KHC:11525 MFA No. 2899 of 2013
the Miscellaneous First Appeal is dismissed for non-
prosecution.
Sd/JUDGE
TKN List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1.1
Sri. Ramaiah @ Matta
The National Insurance Co. Ltd.
Jyoti Mulimani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
