Back
2001 Supreme(SC) 1733
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.P. MISRA, B.N. AGARWAL, JJ.
Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Another – Petitioners
Versus
Bhupinder Paul Singh and Another – Respondents
S.L.P. (Civil) No. 3236 of 2000
Decided On : 13-07-2001
The purpose of a legal provision should be considered fulfilled if the underlying objective has been met, even if the literal requirements have not been strictly adhered to.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Appeal - Deposit of Amount - Interpretation of Section 173
Fact of the Case:
The appellant deposited the entire decretal amount before the Tribunal at Jalandhar, but the High Court refused to entertain the appeal due to non-deposit of Rs. 25,000 in the High Court as required by Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the purpose of Section 173 had been satisfied by the deposit made by the appellant before the Tribunal, and it would not be just and proper to dismiss the appeal on the ground of non-deposit in the High Court. The impugned order was set aside, and the case was remanded back to the High Court for proper consideration.
Issues: The main issue was whether the High Court was justified in not entertaining the appeal due to non-deposit of Rs. 25,000 in the High Court as required by Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and held that the purpose of the section had been fulfilled by the deposit made before the Tribunal, and thus, the appeal should not be dismissed solely on the ground of non-deposit in the High Court.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the case was remanded back to the High Court for proper consideration. Costs were imposed on the parties.
ORDER :
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. The only point for consideration is, whether the High Court was justified in not entertaining the appeal on account of non-deposit of Rs. 25,000/- in terms of Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
4. It is not in dispute that the appellant did deposit the entire decretal amount before the Tribunal at Jalandhar though the requirement under the aforesaid section was to deposit Rs. 25,000/- on 50% of the decretal amount whichever is less along with the Memo of Appeal. The High Court came to the conclusion, the appellant had to deposit Rs. 25,000/- in the High Court alongwith the Memo of Appeal. It is true, under the said section that is so but since on the facts of the case, the appellant under misconception did deposit not only the said limited amount but entire decretal amount before the Tribunal. We do not find it would be just and proper to let this appeal be dismissed on this ground of not having deposited along with the Memo of Appeal. The purpose of the said section has been more than satisfied by the said deposit. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 19th April, 2000 is hereby set aside and the case is remanded back to the High Court to entertain the appeal by treating it to be properly filed by the appellant. The High Court will then decide the appeal is accordance with law on merits.
5. The appeal is allowed. Costs on the parties.
Appeal allowed.
