ROHIT S/O CHANDRAKANT MORE v. DINAKAR S/O SADASHIV PATIL
MFA/100567/2023 · 2025-08-28
Ashok S Kinagi
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 65388 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 65388 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
- 1 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10829 MFA No. 100567 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100567 OF 2023 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
1.
ROHIT S/O CHANDRAKANT MORE AGE. 44 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. YAMAGARNI, TAL. CHIKKODI, DISTRICT. BELAGAVI 591241.
2.
CHANDRAKANT S/O MAHADEV MORE AGE. 64 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. YAMAGARNI, TAL. CHIKKODI, DISTRICT. BELAGAVI 591241. …APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. PRASHANT MATHAPATI, ADV)
AND:
1.
DINAKAR S/O SADASHIV PATIL AGE. 49 YEARS, OCC. NIL, R/O. SIDDHANERLI, TAL. KAGAL, DISTRICT. KOLHAPUR 416232.
2.
SUBHADRA S/O SADASHIV PATIL AGE. 66 YEARS, OCC. NIL, R/O. SIDDHANERLI, TAL. KAGAL, DISTRICT. KOLHAPUR 416232.
3.
SOU. SUNANDA RAGHUNATH PATIL AGE. 47 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O. SHIROL, TAL. KARVEER, DISTRICT. KOLHAPUR 416232.
4.
RAJASHRI SADASHIV PATIL AGE. 43 YEARS, OCC. NIL, R/O. SIDDHANERLI, TAL. KAGAL, DISTRICT. KOLHAPUR 416232. …RESPONDENTS
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 28.02.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO.2670/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, NIPPANI, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.4,53,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS DEPOSIT.
MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Date: 2025.08.30 12:07:18 +0530
- 2 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10829 MFA No. 100567 of 2023
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI)
Learned counsel for the appellants has filed a memo for withdrawal of the appeal as not pressed.
2. It is stated that the appeal is filed by the owner challenging the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. It is stated that the appellants and the respondents-claimants have amicably settled the matter before the executing court. Hence, it is prayed that the appeal may be dismissed as not pressed, and issue a direction to the office to refund the statutory amount deposited by the appellants.
3. Memo is placed on record.
4. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as not pressed.
- 3 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10829 MFA No. 100567 of 2023
5. Office is directed to refund the statutory amount deposited by the appellants. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE
MBS CT: BSB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41