The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Vs Lingarj S/O Basanna

1 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9214 MFA No. 24762 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 24763 of 2012 MFA No. 24764 of 2012 MFA No. 24765 of 2012 MFA No. 24766 of 2012 MFA No. 24767 of 2012

¶4

R

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶6

DHARWAD BENCH

¶7

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶8

BEFORE

¶9

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

¶10

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 24762 OF 2012 (WC) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 24763 OF 2012 (WC) MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 24764 OF 2012 (WC) MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 24765 OF 2012 (WC) MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 24766 OF 2012 (WC) MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 24767 OF 2012 (WC)

¶11

IN MFA NO. 24762 OF 2012:

¶12

BETWEEN:

¶13

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., HUBBALLI.

¶14

… APPELLANT

¶15

(BY SRI RAJASHEKHAR S. ARANI, ADVOCATE.)

¶16

MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH

¶17

Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Date: 2025.08.14 12:07:12 +0530

¶18

AND:

¶19

JAYANNA S/O NARSHIMAPPA, AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: CLEANER NOW NIL, R/O: GUDGOLLARHATTI, TQ: HIREUR, NOW RESIDING AT RANEBENNUR.

¶20

SRI. N. MAHANTESH S/O NINGAPPA, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF LORRY, R/O: TIRUMALAPUR KUBARHALLI, DIST: CHITRADURGA.

¶21

… RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI ABHINANDAN HIREMATH, AMICUS CURIAE.)

¶23

2 -

¶24

HC-KAR

¶25

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9214 MFA No. 24762 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 24763 of 2012 MFA No. 24764 of 2012 MFA No. 24765 of 2012 MFA No. 24766 of 2012 MFA No. 24767 of 2012

¶26

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF THE WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION ACT, 1923, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 15.06.2012, PASSED IN W.C.NO.33/2011, ON THE FILE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMAN’S COMPENSATION, HAVERI AND ETC.,.

¶27

IN MFA NO. 24763 OF 2012:

¶28

BETWEEN:

¶29

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., HUBBALLI.

¶30

… APPELLANT

¶31

(BY SRI RAJASHEKHAR S. ARANI, ADVOCATE.)

¶32

AND:

¶33

LINGRAJ S/O BASANNA, AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: HAMAL NOW NIL, R/O: VENUGOPALGUDDDA, NOW R/O: RANEBENNUR.

¶34

SRI. N. MAHANTESH S/O NINGAPPA, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF LORRY, R/O: TIRUMALAPUR KUBARHALLI, DIST: CHITRADURGA.

¶35

… RESPONDENTS

¶36

(BY SRI ABHINANDAN HIREMATH, AMICUS CURIAE.)

¶37

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF THE WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION ACT, 1923, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 15.06.2012, PASSED IN W.C.NO.34/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMAN’S COMPENSATION, HAVERI AND ETC.,.

¶38

3 -

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9214 MFA No. 24762 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 24763 of 2012 MFA No. 24764 of 2012 HC-KAR MFA No. 24765 of 2012 MFA No. 24766 of 2012 MFA No. 24767 of 2012

¶40

IN MFA NO. 24764 OF 2012:

¶41

BETWEEN:

¶42

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., HUBBALLI.

¶43

… APPELLANT

¶44

(BY SRI RAJASHEKHAR S. ARANI, ADVOCATE.)

¶45

AND:

¶46

JAILINGAPPA S/O SANNCHITAPPA, AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: HAMAL NOW NIL, R/O: GUDDGOLLARHATTI, NOW R/O: RANEBENNUR.

¶47

SRI N. MAHANTESH S/O NINGAPPA, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF LORRY, R/O: TIRUMALAPUR KUBARHALLI, DIST: CHITRADURGA.

¶48

… RESPONDENTS

¶49

(BY SRI ABHINANDAN HIREMATH, AMICUS CURIAE.)

¶50

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF THE WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION ACT, 1923, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 15.06.2012, PASSED IN W.C.NO.35/2011, ON THE FILE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMAN’S COMPENSATION, HAVERI AND ETC.,.

¶51

IN MFA NO. 24765 OF 2012:

¶52

BETWEEN:

¶53

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., HUBBALLI.

¶54

… APPELLANT

¶55

(BY SRI RAJASHEKHAR S. ARANI, ADVOCATE.)

¶56

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9214 MFA No. 24762 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 24763 of 2012 MFA No. 24764 of 2012 HC-KAR MFA No. 24765 of 2012 MFA No. 24766 of 2012 MFA No. 24767 of 2012

¶57

AND:

¶58

RAMESH S/O CHITAPPA, AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: HAMAL NOW NIL, R/O: GUDDGOLLARHATTI, NOW R/O: RANEBENNUR.

¶59

SRI N. MAHANTESH S/O NINGAPPA, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF LORRY, R/O: TIRUMALAPUR KUBARHALLI, DIST: CHITRADURGA.

¶60

… RESPONDENTS

¶61

(BY SRI ABHINANDAN HIREMATH, AMICUS CURIAE.)

¶62

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF THE WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION ACT, 1923, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 15.06.2012, PASSED IN W.C.NO.36/2011, ON THE FILE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMAN’S COMPENSATION, HAVERI AND ETC.,.

¶63

IN MFA NO. 24766 OF 2012:

¶64

BETWEEN:

¶65

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., HUBBALLI.

¶66

… APPELLANT

¶67

(BY SRI RAJASHEKHAR S. ARANI, ADVOCATE.)

¶68

AND:

¶69

CHITAPPA S/O CHITAPPA, AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: HAMAL NOW NIL, R/O: GUDDGOLLARHATTI, NOW R/O: RANEBENNUR.

¶70

SRI N. MAHANTESH S/O NINGAPPA, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF LORRY,

¶71

5 -

¶72

HC-KAR

¶73

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9214 MFA No. 24762 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 24763 of 2012 MFA No. 24764 of 2012 MFA No. 24765 of 2012 MFA No. 24766 of 2012 MFA No. 24767 of 2012

¶74

R/O: TIRUMALAPUR KUBARHALLI, DIST: CHITRADURGA.

¶75

… RESPONDENTS

¶76

(BY SRI ABHINANDAN HIREMATH, AMICUS CURIAE.)

¶77

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF THE WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION ACT, 1923, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 15.06.2012, PASSED IN W.C.NO.37/2011, ON THE FILE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMAN’S COMPENSATION, HAVERI AND ETC.,.

¶78

IN MFA NO. 24767 OF 2012:

¶79

BETWEEN:

¶80

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., HUBBALLI.

¶81

… APPELLANT

¶82

(BY SRI RAJASHEKHAR S. ARANI, ADVOCATE.)

¶83

AND:

¶84

CHANDRAPPA S/O NINGAPPA, AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: HAMAL NOW NIL, R/O: TIRUMALPUR, NOW R/O: RANEBENNUR.

¶85

SRI. N. MAHANTESH S/O NINGAPPA, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF LORRY, R/O: TIRUMALAPUR KUBARHALLI, DIST: CHITRADURGA.

¶86

… RESPONDENTS

¶87

(BY SRI ABHINANDAN HIREMATH, AMICUS CURIAE.)

¶88

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF THE WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION ACT, 1923, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 15.06.2012, PASSED IN W.C.NO.38/2011, ON THE FILE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMAN’S COMPENSATION, HAVERI AND ETC.,.

¶89

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9214 MFA No. 24762 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 24763 of 2012 MFA No. 24764 of 2012 HC-KAR MFA No. 24765 of 2012 MFA No. 24766 of 2012 MFA No. 24767 of 2012

¶90

THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR DICTATING JUDGMENT THIS DAY, JUDGMENT IS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶91

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶92

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR)

¶93

These appeals are filed by the insurance company challenging the judgment and order dated 15.06.2012, passed by the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Haveri, in W.C.A./N.F.No.33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38 of 2011, respectively, thereby, the claim petitions are allowed ordering payment of compensation by the appellant/insurance company.

¶94

It is the case of claimants that on 10.07.2004 the claimants were being cleaner and hamal under the employment of respondent No.2 owner of lorry have been instructed by the employer/respondent No.2 to go in the lorry bearing No.KA-02/A-9163 for loading bricks from Ishwargere to Hiriyuru. At that time due to rash and

¶95

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9214 MFA No. 24762 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 24763 of 2012 MFA No. 24764 of 2012 HC-KAR MFA No. 24765 of 2012 MFA No. 24766 of 2012 MFA No. 24767 of 2012

¶96

negligent driving of the lorry, the lorry was toppled down and the claimants have sustained injuries.

¶97

Initially the claimants had filed claim petition before the learned Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner (‘Commissioner’ for short), Chitradurga. But the claimants have not pressed the said petitions and the said petitions were dismissed as not pressed. No liberty was sought to file fresh petition.

¶98

Subsequently, in the year 2011, the claimants have filed the present petitions before the learned Commissioner, at Haveri. The learned Commissioner, Haveri, has allowed the claim petitions and awarded compensation with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization.

¶99

The appellant/insurance company has filed these appeals raising various grounds and the learned counsel for appellant/insurance company has argued in

¶100

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9214 MFA No. 24762 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 24763 of 2012 MFA No. 24764 of 2012 HC-KAR MFA No. 24765 of 2012 MFA No. 24766 of 2012 MFA No. 24767 of 2012

¶101

consonance with the grounds raised and one of the principal contention of the appellant/insurance company is that the earlier claim petition No.474/2004 was dismissed as not pressed and liberty was not sought for filing fresh petition. Therefore, filing of subsequent petitions before the learned Commissioner, Haveri, are not maintainable in view of Order IX Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (‘CPC’ for short).

¶102

Therefore, it is argued that the claimants ought to have taken recourse to get restoration of the previous petitions filed before the learned Commissioner, Chitradurga and contest the same or after getting restoration/revival of the earlier petition at Chitradurga, then the clamant ought to have contested the claim petitions. Therefore, once before the learned Commissioner, Chitradurga, the claim petitions have been attained finality, hence once again filing the claim petitions

¶103

9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9214 MFA No. 24762 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 24763 of 2012 MFA No. 24764 of 2012 HC-KAR MFA No. 24765 of 2012 MFA No. 24766 of 2012 MFA No. 24767 of 2012

¶104

on the very same cause of action are not maintainable. Therefore, prays to set aside the impugned orders.

¶105

Learned counsel for appellant/insurance

¶106

company places reliance on the following decisions.

¶107

i) Judgment of this Court in MFA No.101224/2022 c/w. MFA No.100968/2020 dated 09.01.2025, in the case of Smt.Manoranjana W/o. Anand Koli and others vs. Mr.Ayub Sardar sheikh Since deceased rep. by his Lrs. and another.

¶108

ii) Judgment of this Court in 4116/2008 dated 16.11.2016, in the case of Divisional Manager vs. Rahimansab and another.

¶109

iii) Judgment of this Court in MFA No.24208/2011 dated 05.07.2021, in the case of The Divisional Manager vs. Halappa and another.

¶110

Therefore, by placing reliance on the decisions

¶111

of this Court above stated, the learned counsel vehemently submits that the claim petitions filed before the learned Commissioner, Haveri, are not maintainable.

¶112

10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9214 MFA No. 24762 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 24763 of 2012 MFA No. 24764 of 2012 HC-KAR MFA No. 24765 of 2012 MFA No. 24766 of 2012 MFA No. 24767 of 2012

¶113

Therefore, prays to allow the appeals and set aside the impugned orders.

¶114

The respondents/claimants and the

¶115

employer/owner of vehicle were remained absent in spite of service of notice to them. Therefore, this Court has appointed learned counsel Sri Abhinandan Hiremath, as Amicus Curiae for the respondents/claimants and also to assist the Court.

¶116

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company and the learned Amicus Curiae for the respondents/claimants and perused the material placed before the Court.

¶117

The substantial questions of law that arise for

¶118

consideration in these appeals are as under:

¶119

i) Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, once the claim petitions are disposed of either by way of default, non prosecution, withdrawal or not pressing the petitions,

¶120

11 -

¶121

HC-KAR

¶122

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9214 MFA No. 24762 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 24763 of 2012 MFA No. 24764 of 2012 MFA No. 24765 of 2012 MFA No. 24766 of 2012 MFA No. 24767 of 2012

¶123

then subsequent petitions filed by the very same claimants in respect of the very same accident are maintainable?

¶124

ii) Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the order passed by the learned Commissioner, Haveri, requires any interference by this Court?

¶125

Only one point is argued by the learned counsel

¶126

for appellant/insurance company that the claim petitions are not maintainable in view of Order IX Rule 9 of CPC that the previous claim petition filed before the learned Commissioner, Chitradurga, was dismissed as not pressed upon the memo filed by the learned counsel for the claimants and liberty was not granted for filing the successive petitions. Therefore, subsequent claim petitions are not maintainable. Therefore, by placing reliance on the above decisions, it is argued that the claim petitions filed before the learned Commissioner, Haveri, are not maintainable. Therefore, prays to allow the appeals.

¶127

12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9214 MFA No. 24762 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 24763 of 2012 MFA No. 24764 of 2012 HC-KAR MFA No. 24765 of 2012 MFA No. 24766 of 2012 MFA No. 24767 of 2012

¶128

The ratio laid down in all the above cited

¶129

decisions is that once the claim petition is dismissed for default, non prosecution, withdrawal, not pressed, then, the subsequent claim petitions are not maintainable by placing reliance on Order IX Rule 9 of CPC. Therefore, it was observed that the claimants are precluded from bringing fresh claim petitions in respect of the very same cause of action. But the claimants may seek for setting aside the said dismissal order and if the Court restores/revives the claim petitions, then the claimants shall pursue the said petitions.

¶130

Order IX Rule 9 of CPC stipulates as follows:

¶131

9. Decree against plaintiff by default bars fresh suit.— (1) Where a suit is wholly or partly dismissed under rule 8, the plaintiff shall be precluded from bringing a fresh suit in respect of the same cause of action. But he may apply for an order to set the dismissal aside, and if he satisfies the Court that there was sufficient cause for his non-appearance when the suit was called on for hearing, the Court shall make an order setting aside the dismissal upon such terms as to costs or

¶132

13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9214 MFA No. 24762 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 24763 of 2012 MFA No. 24764 of 2012 HC-KAR MFA No. 24765 of 2012 MFA No. 24766 of 2012 MFA No. 24767 of 2012

¶133

otherwise as it thinks fit, and shall appoint a day for proceeding with the suit.

¶134

(2) No order shall be made under this rule unless notice of the application has been served on the opposite party.

¶135

The key word is for precluding bringing a fresh suit is “on the same cause of action”. Therefore, for every new cause of action or where cause of action is continued, and on the basis of the continued same cause of action, claiming legal right is still subsisting, then the second petition can be filed. The Order IX Rule 9 of CPC precludes filing fresh petitions on the very same cause of action.

¶136

The claim petition arising out of motor vehicle accident or employment injuries/death, the claim for compensation is continuing one and the cause of action to prefer the claim petition is continuing one. The claim of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act or under the Employees Compensation Act or under any other allied statutes, these statutes are social beneficial legislatures.

¶137

14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9214 MFA No. 24762 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 24763 of 2012 MFA No. 24764 of 2012 HC-KAR MFA No. 24765 of 2012 MFA No. 24766 of 2012 MFA No. 24767 of 2012

¶138

The technicality of law shall not come in the way of giving substantial justice. The judicial approach, thus, seems to be liberal in regard to prosecution of claim petitions under the Act. The dismissal of the claim petitions, otherwise than on merits, has not been held to be a bar to file fresh petition, irrespective the fact of either the first petition was dismissed or withdrawn or was dismissed for default.

¶139

Order XXIII Rule 14 of CPC stipulates as

¶140

follows:

¶141

1. Withdrawal of suit or abandonment of part of claim.—

¶142

(1) XXX

¶143

(2) XXX

¶144

(3) XXX

¶145

(4) Where the plaintiff—

¶146

(a) abandons any suit or part of claim under sub-rule (1), or

¶147

(b) withdraws from a suit or part of a claim without the permission referred to in sub-rule (3),

¶148

15 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9214 MFA No. 24762 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 24763 of 2012 MFA No. 24764 of 2012 HC-KAR MFA No. 24765 of 2012 MFA No. 24766 of 2012 MFA No. 24767 of 2012

¶149

he shall be liable for such costs as the Court may award and shall be precluded from instituting any fresh suit in respect of such subject-matter or such part of the claim.

¶150

The cause of action for filing the claim petition for seeking compensation being a recurring one, it is not necessary for the claimant/plaintiff to obtain permission of the Court to withdraw the claim filed in the previous petition. Therefore, the claimant can still maintain a second petition till his right is decided or the second petition is for any other reasons such as territorial jurisdiction or pecuniary jurisdiction, etc.,. Therefore, where death or injury occurs either in a motor vehicle accident or occurs death or such injury to workman out of and in the course of employment, the legal right is continuing one till his claim is adjudicated as per law. Therefore, the cause of action for filing claim petition till his plea of claim is decided is recurring one. Therefore, dismissal of the previous petition even for default or as not

¶151

16 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9214 MFA No. 24762 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 24763 of 2012 MFA No. 24764 of 2012 HC-KAR MFA No. 24765 of 2012 MFA No. 24766 of 2012 MFA No. 24767 of 2012

¶152

pressed shall not preclude for claiming his legal right through the second petition when the previous petition is not adjudicated on merits.

¶153

The above referred decisions have not been dealt with on the aspect regarding what is definition of “cause of action” for the bar for filing fresh suit/fresh petition. Therefore, for the difference in factual matrix involved in those cases and in the present cases, the above said decisions are not applicable to the present case. In the present case, the accident is occurred on 10.07.2004 and initially claim petitions are filed before the learned Commissioner, Chitradurga and subsequently, the said claim petitions were dismissed as not pressed upon the memo filed by counsels for the claimants and no liberty was sought for filing the fresh claim petitions as all the facts are not in dispute. The subsequent petitions were filed in the year 2011. As discussed above, for claiming compensation in these types of cases for seeking

¶154

17 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9214 MFA No. 24762 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 24763 of 2012 MFA No. 24764 of 2012 HC-KAR MFA No. 24765 of 2012 MFA No. 24766 of 2012 MFA No. 24767 of 2012

¶155

compensation is continuing one/recurring one till the claim of compensation decided on merits. The legal right of claiming compensation is continuing one till the claim for compensation is decided on merits. Therefore, just because liberty is not sought for, while withdrawing the petition, the subsequent filing of a fresh suit/petition is not barred. Therefore, in this regard, the filing of claim petitions before the learned Commissioner, Haveri are maintainable and the determination of compensation and award made by the learned Commissioner, Haveri, is found to be legal and justified. Accordingly, I answer substantial question of law No.1 in the ‘affirmative’ and No.2 in the ‘negative’.

¶156

Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶157

ORDER

¶158

i. The appeals filed by insurance company are dismissed.

¶159

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9214 MFA No. 24762 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 24763 of 2012 MFA No. 24764 of 2012 MFA No. 24765 of 2012 MFA No. 24766 of 2012 MFA No. 24767 of 2012

¶160

18 -

¶161

HC-KAR

¶162

ii. The judgment and order dated 15.06.2012, passed by the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Haveri, in W.C.A./N.F.No. 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38 of 2011, stands confirmed.

¶163

iii. Amount in deposit made by the appellant/insurance company shall be transmitted to the Commissioner concerned for disbursement, along with TCR.

¶164

iv. The Secretary, High Court of Karnataka Legal Services Committee is requested to pay fees to the Amicus Curiae as per rules.

¶165

v. No order as to costs.

¶166

Sd/(HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE

¶167

MRK-para 1 to 18. RKM-para 19 to end. CT: BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 45

The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. v. Lingarj S/O Basanna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. v. Lingarj S/O Basanna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Karnataka Urban Housing Co-Operative Society Ltd., Vs Hanumantharaya

Najeema Banu W/O Javeed Ahammad Mattikoti Vs Divisional Controller

The Divisional Manager Vs Bijan Kauram Owary

Goudappa S/O Hanumagouda Patil, Vs Sanganabasappa S/O Kalakappa Tamminal

The Divisional Manager, Vs Jayanna S/O Narshimappa

The Divisional Manager, Vs Jailingappa S/O Sannchitappa