SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1979 Supreme(SC) 122

V.R.KRISHNA IYER, O.CHHINNAPPA REDDY
State Of Haryana – Appellant
Versus
Darshana Devi – Respondent


Advocates:
M.N.SHROFF, PREM MALHOTRA

Judgment

KRISHNA IYER, J.:- We refuse leave but with a message tag.

2. The poor shall not be prised out of the justice market by insistence on court-fee and refusal to apply the exemptive provisions of Order XXXIII, C.P.C. So we are distressed that the State of Haryana, mindless of the mandate of equal justice to the indigent under the Magna Carta of our Republic, expressed in Article 14 and stressed in Art. 39A of the Constitution, has sought leave to appeal against the order of the High Court which has rightly extended the pauper provisions to auto-accident claims. The reasoning of the High Court in holding that Order XXXIII will apply to tribunals which have the trappings of the civil court finds our approval. We affirm the decision.

3. Even so it is fair for the State to make clear the situation by framing appropriate rules to exempt from levy of court-fee cases of claims of compensation where automobile accidents are the cause.

4. Here is a case of a widow and daughter claiming compensation for the killing of the sole bread-winner by a State Transport bus; and the Haryana Government, instead of acting on social justice and generously settling the claim, fights like a cantankerous









Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top