A.P.MISRA, K.VENKATASWAMI
Tariff Advisory Committee – Appellant
Versus
Hajjan Nanhi – Respondent
ORDER
SLP (C) No. 8674 of 1998
1. We do not think that at this stage, we should interfere. The petitioner can move the High Court for appropriate relief. We have no doubt that having regard to the circumstances, the High Court will expeditiously dispose of the interim applications. The special leave petition is dismissed.
IPs (C) Nos. 517-522 of 1998
2. These transfer petitions are filed under Article 139-A of the Constitution of India to transfer the writ applications filed in different High Courts by operators of stage carriages and others challenging Section 64-UC of the Insurance Act, 1938, and also the enhancement of motor tariff insurance premium ranging between 182.75% to 244% of the existing tariff to be paid by the transport operators and also the exercise of powers of the Central Government under Section 35 of the General Insurance Corporation Act. It is stated by the learned Attorney General that in the judgment in Jt. Council of Bus Syndicate v. Union of India [1992 Supp (2) SCC 125] the questions raised in various High Courts stand concluded leaving no scope for further arguments. In the circumstances, the learned Attorney General prays for transfer of some of the case
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.