Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 61937 (KAR)

SHRI VIVEK S/O MABALESHWAR NAIK v. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER

MFA/105765/2024 · 2025-10-30

Chillakur Sumalatha

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14723 MFA No. 105765 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 105765 OF 2024 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. SHRI VIVEK S/O. MABALESHWAR NAIK, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/A. HEBBALI, UPPINPATTANA, KUMTA TALUK, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA-581 362. 2. SMT. BHARATHI W/O. VIVEK NAIK, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/A. HEBBALI, UPPINPATTANA, KUMTA TALUK, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA-581 362. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. NAYANA KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., SHANKAR BUILDING, MOSQUE ROAD, POST BOX NO.97, UDUPI-576 101. (INSURER OF THE VEHICLE) …RESPONDENT THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, 1988 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 14.10.2022 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT, AT: HONNAVAR IN COMMON JUDGMENT IN M.V.C.NO.324, 325 AND 326 OF 2020 AND KINDLY ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION AWARDED TO THE DECEASED TO RS.21,99,692.00/- (RUPEES TWENTY-ONE LAKHS NINETY NINE THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED NINETY TWO ONLY) CONSIDERING THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE GOVT. GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Digitally signed by GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.11.03 12:22:06 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14723 MFA No. 105765 of 2024 OF KARNATKA ON PAYMENT OF MINIMUM WAGES TO UNSKILLED WORKERS. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) The appeal was filed in the year 2024 and till now, office objections are not complied. This Court does not find any grounds to grant further time. Therefore, the appeal stands dismissed for non-compliance of office objections. Sd/- (CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE VMB CT-MCK List No.: 2 Sl No.: 8