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

1984 Supreme(AP) 360

P.A.CHOUDHARY, PUNNAIAH
Babumiyan and Mastan – Appellant
Versus
K. Seethayamma – Respondent


PUNNAYYA, J.

( 1 ) THE respondents herein filed I. A. No. 54 of 1983 for condemnation of delay in filing O. P. No. 1 of 1983 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad under S. 110a (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act r/w Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act. The Tribunal condoned the delay and allowed the I. A. No. 54 of 1983 on payment of costs of Rs. 100. 00 to allow each respondent. Aggrieved with the order allowing the interlocutory application the petitioner (respondents 1 and 2) preferred CMASR No. 62425 of 1983 in this Court.

( 2 ) THE office took an objection that the appeal does not lie and the officer asked the counsel for the appellants to convert the CMA into CRP. For taking this objection and for urging the counsel to convert the CMA into revision the office relied upon the decision of a Bench of this Court in CMA No. 612 of 1977 dated 3-4-1978.

( 3 ) THE said CMA was directed against the order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chittoor condoning the delay in filing the claim petition. The Claims Tribunal condoned the delay inv0king the proviso to sub-sec. (3) of S. 110-A which empowers the Claims Tribunal to condone the delay, if it is satisfi



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