Disposed

The Manager Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd., v. Smt. Renukamma

Karnataka HC7 Jan 2026WP/35357/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the High Court disposed of the insurer's challenge to a Tribunal order condoning delay. Observing pending Supreme Court orders stipulate judgments must not be finalized, the Court directed the Tribunal to adjudicate the claim without passing judgment.

What did the court decide?

The Tribunal must proceed with the adjudication of the claim petition but without passing Judgment.

The Manager Iffco Tokio General Insurance… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:1428 WP No. 35357 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 35357 OF 2025 (GM-AC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

THE MANAGER IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., DOOR NO. 7/432, K.B. EXTENSION, KUVEMPU ROAD, DAVANAGERE. NOW REP BY THE IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED. NO.141, SRI. SHANTHI TOWER, 5TH FLOOR, 3RD MAIN, EAST OF NGEF LAYOUT, KASTURI NAGAR, BANGALORE 560 043. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, RAMYA K R COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER COMPANY ACT-1956

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

SMT. RENUKAMMA, W/O. THIPPERUDRAPPA,

¶15

¶16

NC: 2026:KHC:1428 WP No. 35357 of 2025

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/O. ANABUR VILLAGE, JAGALUR TALUK, DAVANAGERE DIST.

¶19

SHAHIR. T. @SAMEER, S/O. LATE BUDEN SAB, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS. R/O. NIMBALAGERE VILLAGE, KUDLIGI TALUK, VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT.

¶20

MALLIK SAB. H S/O. HUSSIAN SAB, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS. R/O. MARIKATTE VILLAGE, JAGALUR TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDERS ON IA NO.III DATED 08-10-2025 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE 1 ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DAVANAGERE U IN M.V.C. NO.649/2023 AT ANNEXURE - A; DIRECTIONS TO REJECT THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 UNDER SECTION 5 OF LIMITATION ACT ON IA NO. 1 AT ANNEXURE-C IN M.V.C. NO. 649/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DAVANAGERE U AND HOLD THAT THE CLAIM PETITION IS NOT MAINTAINABLE.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶25

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:1428 WP No. 35357 of 2025

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

This petition is by an Insurer calling in question the order dated 08.10.2025 in MVC No.649/2023 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Davanagere [for short, ' the Tribunal ']. The Tribunal, by this impugned order, has allowed the application filed by the respondent - claimant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 [for short, 'the Act' ] condoning the delay in filing the claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Mr. Pradeep B, the learned counsel for the petitioner, is heard in the light of the interim orders granted by the Apex Court in the writ petition in WP [Civil] No.166/2024 and connected matters.

¶29

It remains undisputed that the Apex Court, by its interim order dated 16.12.2025, has observed that pendency of the writ petitions/special leave petitions before it shall not come in the way of the claim petitions being adjudicated by the Tribunals but with

¶30

¶31

NC: 2026:KHC:1428 WP No. 35357 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

the stipulation that the judgments shall not be finalized, and the Apex Court's order is in the light of the question whether the Tribunals could condone delay under Section 5 of the Act and entertain the claim petitions.

¶34

This Court is of the considered view that with the afore stipulation, this petition must be disposed of observing that the Tribunal's impugned order would be subject to the final outcome in the pending matters before the Apex Court, and this Court must next observe that the Tribunal must proceed with the adjudication of the claim petition but without passing Judgment. As such, the petition stands disposed of in the afore terms.

¶35

SD/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶36

The Manager Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd., v. Smt. Renukamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Manager Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd., v. Smt. Renukamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Smt.Meghashree B.S.

Smt. Manjula M G Vs the Principal of Secretary

Sri.B. Haumanthapppa Vs Registrar of Society and Joint Director of Co. Operative Societies

Smt Sunandama Vs the State of Karnataka

The Branch Manager Vs Papanna

The Regional Manager Vs Mr.Imthiyaz Pasha