H B Niranjan vs H B Om Prasad

Type Court Judgment Court Karnataka Decided Mar 05, 2024

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1918138

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1918138
Court: Karnataka High Court
Judge: Jyoti Mulimani
Decided On: Mar 05, 2024
Case Number: MFA/3313/2016

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

H B Niranjan

Respondent

H B Om Prasad

Excerpt

.....sas no.13, b.m.road, kushalnagar, kodagu-571 234. …respondents (r1-dismissed v/o dated:29.01.2024; sri. b.a.ramakrishna., advocate for r2) this miscellaneous first appeal is filed under section 173(1) of the motor vehicles act, 1988, -2- against the judgment and award dated: 09.11.2015 passed in mvc no.3/2014 on the file of the senior civil judge, mact, madikeri. this miscellaneous first appeal is coming on for admission, this day, the court made the following:orderwhen the matter is called there is no representation on behalf of appellant, either personally or through video conferencing. sri.b.a.ramakrishna., learned counsel for respondent no.2 has appeared in person. a perusal of the daily order sheet depicts that this court vide order dated:29.01.2024 granted two weeks time to take fresh steps in respect of respondent no.1, failing which, it was ordered that the appeal as against respondent no.1 stands dismissed automatically without reference to the bench. a perusal of the office note depicts that the appellant has not made any efforts to do the needful in respect of respondent no.1. in view of the earlier peremptory order, the appeal against respondent no.1 stands dismissed. furthermore, the claim petition as against insurance company is dismissed. -3- since the petition against respondent no.1 is dismissed and claim petition is rejected against the insurance company, nothing survives for consideration in the appeal. resultantly, the miscellaneous first appeal is dismissed. sd/- judge mrp list no.: 1 sl no.: 35

Full Judgment

-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3313 OF 2016(MV-I) BETWEEN: H.B.NIRANJAN R/O SANGAYYANPURA VILLAGE, SOMWARPET TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT-571 236. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. VIDWATH.M.Y., ADVOCATE [ABSENT]) AND:
1. H.B.OM PRASAD Digitally signed by R/O SANGAYYANPURA VILLAGE, THEJASKUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF SAMWARPET TALUK, KARNATAKA KODAGU DISTRICT-57 236.
2. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY
2ND BLOCK, SY.NO.SD146/2C, SAS NO.13, B.M.ROAD, KUSHALNAGAR, KODAGU-571 234. …RESPONDENTS (R1-DISMISSED V/O DATED:29.01.2024; SRI. B.A.RAMAKRISHNA., ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, -2- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 09.11.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.3/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT, MADIKERI. THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

When the matter is called there is no representation on behalf of appellant, either personally or through video conferencing. Sri.B.A.Ramakrishna., learned counsel for respondent No.2 has appeared in person. A perusal of the daily order sheet depicts that this Court vide order dated:29.01.2024 granted two weeks time to take fresh steps in respect of respondent No.1, failing which, it was ordered that the appeal as against respondent No.1 stands dismissed automatically without reference to the Bench. A perusal of the office note depicts that the appellant has not made any efforts to do the needful in respect of respondent No.1. In view of the earlier peremptory order, the appeal against respondent No.1 stands dismissed. Furthermore, the claim petition as against Insurance Company is dismissed. -3- Since the petition against respondent No.1 is dismissed and claim petition is rejected against the Insurance Company, nothing survives for consideration in the appeal. Resultantly, the Miscellaneous First Appeal is dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35

Same Court & Year Karnataka · 2024 Same Parties H B Niranjan vs H B Om Prasad Same Judge Jyoti Mulimani