Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
Vs.
RAMESH BHAI C. PATEL
Decided on February 7, 1997
Procedural Objections - Motor Vehicles Act - The court held that procedural or technical objections should not frustrate the course of justice and that the omission of certain sections of the Motor Vehicles Act was intended to remove the bar of limitation for a claim petition. The petition under Article 227 of the Constitution was deemed to be an appeal to the High court under Section 173 of the Act, and the benefit of the omission of the sections was granted to the claimants, allowing the claim petition to be entertained and decided on merits.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner raised objections regarding the relief granted by the High court in entertaining the claim petition due to the deletion of certain sections of the Motor Vehicles Act. The petitioner also argued that there was a limitation prescribed for filing an appeal under Section 173 which had expired.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the procedural and technical objections raised by the petitioner should not frustrate the course of justice. It deemed the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution to be an appeal to the High court under Section 173 of the Act and granted the benefit of the omission of the sections to the claimants, allowing the claim petition to be entertained and decided on merits.
Issues: Procedural and technical objections raised by the petitioner, the effect of the omission of certain sections of the Motor Vehicles Act, and the interpretation of the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution as an appeal to the High court under Section 173 of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: Procedural or technical objections should not frustrate the course of justice. The omission of certain sections of the Motor Vehicles Act was intended to remove the bar of limitation for a claim petition. The petition under Article 227 of the Constitution was deemed to be an appeal to the High court under Section 173 of the Act, and the benefit of the omission of the sections was granted to the claimants, allowing the claim petition to be entertained and decided on merits.
Final Decision: The special leave petition is disposed of accordingly.
( 1 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the relief granted by the High court of entertaining the claim petition in view of the deletion of Ss. (3 of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act could not have been given in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. He submits that only an appeal in the High court under Section 173 of the Act could have been treated as a pending matter in which the benefit of deletion of Ss. (3 of Section 166 of the Act could have been given. He alsosubmits that there is a limitation prescribed for filing an appeal under Section 173 which had expired and this presented a further difficulty in the present case.
( 2 ) IN our opinion, these are mere procedural or technical objections which should not frustrate the course of justice. The object of omitting Ss. (3 of Section 166 of the Act to remove the bar of limitation for a claim petition is obvious. This being so, a matter which was pending in the High court when this change was brought about, should be governed by the effect of omission of Ss. (3 of Section 166. In the present case, the petition under Article 22,7 of the Constitution is deemed to be an appeal to the High court under Section 173 of the Act and condoning the delay in filing the appeal, the benefit of omission of Ss. (3 of Section 166, is granted to the claimants. The High courts order directing the claim petition to be entertained and decided on merits is sustained on this basis.
( 3 ) THE special leave petition is disposed of accordingly. court Masters
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
