Disposed

Sri C Adisheshaiah Chalasani v. Sri Reddappa

Karnataka HC24 Jan 2024MFA/5304/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed interlocutory applications to condone a 40-day delay and recalled an order dismissing the appeal for non-compliance with registry objections. The appeal was restored to file, and the appellant was directed to comply with the registry objections within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Appeal restored to file; 40-day delay condoned; compliance with registry objections directed within two weeks.

Sri C Adisheshaiah Chalasani Vs Sri Reddappa — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶5

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5304 OF 2022

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. C. ADISHESHAIAH CHALASANI @ ADHISHESHALU, S/O C. VENKATAIAH, AGE:52 NO.3-101, GOTLURU VILLAGE & POST DHARMAVARAM TOWN & MANDALAM, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-515672. (OWNER OF EICHER CANTER BEARING REG. NO.AP-02-TB-7899).

¶8

..APPELLANT

¶9

(By SRI. B.R. DEEPAK, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

SRI. REDDAPPA, S/O, LATE SRIRAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS.

¶12

SMT. SUBBAMMA W/O REDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS.

¶13

SHOBA, D/O REDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS

¶14

MFA.No. 5304/2022 2 ---------------------------ALL ARE R/AT KASHETTIPALLI VILLAGE, NELAVANKI HOBLI, SRINIVASAPURA TALUK.

¶15

M/S CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., UNIT NO.4, 9^TH FLOOR, (LEVEL-6), GOLDEN HEIGHTS COMPELX, 59^TH ‘C’ CROSS INDUSTRIAL SUBURB, 4^TH ‘M’ BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 010. (INSURER OF THE EICHER CANTER), BEARING REG.NO.AP-02-TB-7899) (VIDE POLICY NO.3379/ ..RESPONDENTS

¶16

This Miscellaneous First Appeal filed U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, against the Judgment and Award dated 24.08.2020 passed in M.V.C.No.701/2014, on the file of the I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT, KOLAR awarding compensation of Rs.9,82,200/- (Rupees Nine Lakh Eighty Two Thousand Two Hundred only) with interest at 9 percent p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit.

¶17

This Miscellaneous First Appeal is coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:

¶18

MFA.No. 5304/2022 3

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

ORDER ON I.A. NOS.2/2023 AND 1/2023

¶21

Learned counsel for appellant has filed two applications namely, IA No.2/2023 for condonation of delay of 40 days in filing the recalling application and IA No.1/2023 to recall the order dated 15.03.2023 passed by this Court dismissing the appeal for non-compliance of objections raised by the Registry.

¶22

I have perused the memorandum of facts annexed to the applications. Being satisfied with the reasons assigned in the memorandum of facts filed in support of the applications, I deem it appropriate to allow the applications as the appeal came to be dismissed for non-compliance of the objections raised by the Registry. Accordingly, IA. Nos.2 and 1 of 2023 are allowed. Delay of 40 days is condoned and the order dated 15.03.2023 is recalled. Appeal is restored to its file.

¶23

Learned counsel for appellant is permitted to comply with the objections raised by the Registry within two weeks, failing which, the order granted today would not enure to the benefit of the appellant.

Sd/JUDGE

MFA.No. 5304/2022

NOTE: Vide Court Order dt.24.01.2024 the Office Objections are not complied with. Hence Appeal stands dismissed for non

¶28

compliance.

¶29

COPY

¶30

Sd/ASSISTANT REGISTRAR T By: AR R By: YL C By: STE

Sri C Adisheshaiah Chalasani v. Sri Reddappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri C Adisheshaiah Chalasani v. Sri Reddappa

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

Smt Laxmi Rathod Vs Sri D H Arunodaya

Suresh G K Vs M S Eshwarappa

M Siddamallappa Vs Siddaraju J

Manivel R Vs Shashikanta Patra

Smt. Sushila Vs P. Koushik Rao

Sri. Puttamadegowda Vs Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd.