Back
BATTU DEVANAND
Regional Manager – Appellant
Versus
Nilapala Nageswaramma – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
BATTU DEVANAND, J.
1. M.A.C.M.A. Nos. 32 and 33 of 2022 have been filed by the appellant/A.P.S.R.T.C. seeking to set aside the order and decree passed in M.V.O.P. Nos. 57 and 71 of 2017 on the file of the learned Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Bhimavaram, dated 30.7.2019.
2. Along with the appeals, the appellant filed I.A. No. 1 of 2022 in both the appeals seeking to condone the delay of 730 days and 873 days respectively in preferring the appeals.
3. In I.A. No. 1 of 2022 in M.A.C.M.A. No. 32 of 2022, the petitioner is APSRTC/appellant and the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are the petitioners/claimants in M.V.O.P. No. 57 of 2017.
4. In I.A. No. 1 of 2022 in M.A.C.M.A. No. 33 of 2022, the petitioner is APSRTC/appellant and the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are the petitioners/claimants in M.V.O.P. No. 71 of 2017. The parties hereinafter will be referred to as arrayed in the MVOP.
4.1 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the material available on record.
5. Brief facts of the case are that:
claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limi....
Point of law: claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. T....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of 'sufficient cause' for condoning delay in filing appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the prescribed period, emphasizing the need for a justice-oriented appr....
The court must prioritize establishing 'sufficient cause' for inordinate delay before examining the merits of the appeal; liberal interpretation of limitation does not permit the condonation of gross....
Section 173 provides that, any person aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal may approach the High Court within ninety days. However, the second proviso states that the High Court “may” still ....
The court held that mere excuses do not constitute sufficient cause for condoning a significant delay in filing an appeal, emphasizing the need for diligence in pursuing legal remedies.
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
