Disposed¶38

The Manager v. Bhyresha

Karnataka HC17 Apr 2026WP/12234/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal limitation six months; maintainability of belated claim petition under Motor Vehicles Act 1988; Section 5 Limitation Act 1963 condonation of delay; sub judice Supreme Court SLP(C) 8412-8413 of 2023; Karnataka High Court WP 12234 of 2026 (GM-AC); IFFCO Tokio General Insurance v. Bhyresha and Sandesh Nagappa Gowda; M.V.C.No.156/2025 Senior Civil Judge JMFC Holalkere order dated 31-10-2025 IA No.1 Annexure-A; Tribunal directed to proceed on merits but defer final judgment and award; writ disposed Articles 226 227 certiorari.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with directions: the Tribunal to continue adjudication of the claim petition on merits, but to defer pronouncement of the final judgment and award until the Supreme Court decides SLP(C) Nos.8412–8413 of 2023 on maintainability of belated claim petitions.

The Manager Vs Bhyresha — Company and Corporate | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶38

Issue for consideration

Whether a belated claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, filed beyond the prescribed six-month period, can be entertained by invoking Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay. +1 more

¶27

Ratio / Principle

Following the consistent course adopted by Co-ordinate Benches, this Court directed the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to proceed with the adjudication of the claim petition on merits, without itself deciding the maintainability question, which remains pending before the Supreme Court.

¶31

Key takeaways

The Tribunal shall refrain from pronouncing the final judgment and award until the Supreme Court renders its decision in SLP(C) Nos.8412–8413 of 2023 concerning the maintainability of claim petitions filed beyond the prescribed limitation period.ratio¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (Sachin Shankar Magadum, J.) disposed of a writ petition (Articles 226/227) by IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. challenging the order dated 31-10-2025 passed on IA No.1 by the MACT/Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Holalkere in M.V.C.No.156/2025, whereby the Tribunal proceeded to adjudicate a claim petition instituted beyond the prescribed six-month period despite the insurer's limitation objection. Observing that the question — whether belated Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claim petitions are entertainable and whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies for condonation of delay — is sub judice before the Supreme Court in SLP(C) Nos.8412–8413 of 2023, and aligning with the consistent practice of Co-ordinate Benches, the Court directed the Tribunal to proceed with adjudication on merits but refrain from pronouncing the final judgment and award until the Apex Court renders its decision. The maintainability issue itself was not decided by this Court.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:21267 WP No. 12234 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 12234 OF 2026 (GM-AC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

THE MANAGER THE IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED. D.NO.7/432, P.C.A AND R.D. BANK, K.B. EXTENSION, LAWYER ROAD, DAVANAGERE - 577 001. NOW REP. BY IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., SRI. SHANTHI TOWERS, 141, 5^TH FLOOR, 3^RD MAIN, EAST OF NGEF LAYOUT, KASTURI NAGAR, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA - 560 043. REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER RAMA-KR COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER COMPANY ACT-1956 …PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

1. BHYRESHA

¶14

S/O. BHADRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/O. SIRAPANAHALLY VILLAGE, HOLALKERE TALUK - 577 526

¶15

¶16

NC: 2026:KHC:21267 WP No. 12234 of 2026

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

SANDESH NAGAPPA GOWDA, S/O. NAGAPPA SANNATAMMA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS. R/O. KORE VILLAGE, HONNAVARA TALUK, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT - 581 334

¶19

…RESPONDENTS THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A. BE PLEASED TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR DIRECTION TO QUASH THE ORDERS DATED 31-10-2025 PASSED ON IA NO.1 COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HOLALKERE IN M.V.C.NO.156/2025 AT ANNEXURE - A AND ETC.

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

The captioned writ petition is filed by the Insurance Company calling in question the order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in M.V.C.No.156/2025, whereby the Tribunal has proceeded with the adjudication of the claim petition notwithstanding the contention of the petitioner that the claim petition itself is barred by limitation, having been instituted beyond the prescribed period of six months.

¶24

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:21267 WP No. 12234 of 2026

¶25

HC-KAR

¶26

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner– Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal has committed an error in proceeding with the claim petition despite the admitted fact that the claim petition has been filed beyond the statutory period of six months. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, wherein the question relating to the maintainability of claim petitions filed beyond the prescribed period and the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, for condonation of delay in such matters has been examined.

¶27

Having examined the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is informed that the very same question, namely, whether a belated claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 can be entertained by invoking Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay beyond the statutory period, is presently under consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos.8412–8413 of 2023. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that in several similar matters, Co-

¶28

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:21267 WP No. 12234 of 2026

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

ordinate Benches of this Court, while taking note of the pendency of the aforesaid Special Leave Petitions before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, have disposed of writ petitions with an observation that the pendency of the matter before the Hon'ble Apex Court shall not come in the way of the Tribunal proceeding with the adjudication of the claim petitions. However, the Tribunal has been directed to defer the pronouncement of the final judgment and award until the issue regarding maintainability of such belated claim petitions is authoritatively decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶31

In the light of the consistent view taken by the Coordinate Benches of this Court and bearing in mind that the issue concerning the maintainability of claim petitions filed beyond the period of six months is presently sub judice before the Hon’ble Apex Court, this Court deems it appropriate to adopt the same course. Accordingly, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is directed to proceed with the adjudication of the claim petition on merits.

¶32

However, the Tribunal shall refrain from pronouncing the final judgment and award until the Hon’ble Supreme Court

¶33

¶34

NC: 2026:KHC:21267 WP No. 12234 of 2026

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

renders its decision in the aforesaid Special Leave Petitions concerning the maintainability of claim petitions filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation.

¶37

With these observations and directions, the writ petition

¶38

stands disposed of .

¶39

Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶40

HDK

¶41

List No.: 3 Sl No.: 9

The Manager v. Bhyresha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Manager v. Bhyresha

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

Sri Vijay Kumar @ Viji Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. H. B. Ramcharan Vs the Principal Secretary

Sri A.R. Raghu Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Krishna Kumar Rai Vs the Commissioner

Sajjan Raj Vs the President

Mr. Tilak Dath Chowdri G, Vs State of Karnataka