... 1 ... IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.2060 OF 2005 ........................................................... OFFICE NOTES, OFFICE MEMORANDUM OF CORAM, APPEARANCES, COURT’S COURT’S OR JUDGES ORDERS OR DIRECTIONS ORDERS AND REGISTRAR’S ORDERS ........................................................... CORAM CORAM CORAM : A. S. OKA, J. : A. S. OKA, J. : A. S. OKA, J. DATE DATE DATE : APRIL 12, 2006. : APRIL 12, 2006. : APRIL 12, 2006. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. The learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants states that Appellant-Company was not granted leave under section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to defend the claim on behalf of the insured. The is no defence raised which is covered by sub-section 2 of section 149 of the said Act of 1988. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, the Appeal preferred by the Appellant is not maintainable and is dismissed as not maintainable. In view of this position, the Appellant is entitled to withdraw a sum of Rs.25,000/- which is deposited by the Appellant in this Court. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE