Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

judgment-img

1973 Supreme(Kar) 191

Karnataka High Court
STATE OF MYSORE - Appellant
Versus
K.L.SUBBANNA - Respondent
Decided On : 08-10-73
C.R.P. : 1360 of 1973

Advocates:
K.SHIVASHANKAR BHAT, S.Basavaraj

The maintainability of a revision petition depends on whether the claims tribunal is a Court subordinate to the High Court.

Headnote:
Revision - Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - The court held that the revision petition filed by the State was not maintainable and was barred by limitation as the claims tribunal was not a Court subordinate to the High Court.
Fact of the Case:

The State of Mysore filed a revision against the order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chitradurga, which held the application as not maintainable and barred by limitation.
Finding of the Court:

The court dismissed the revision petition, stating that it was not maintainable as the claims tribunal was not a Court subordinate to the High Court.
Issues: Maintainability of the revision petition and limitation period.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the claims tribunal was not a Court subordinate to the High Court, and therefore, the revision petition was not maintainable.
Final Decision: The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed as being not maintainable, and no costs were awarded.

( 1 ) THE revision is brought on behalf of the State of Mysore against the order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chitradurga. By the order under revision, the Presiding Officer of the Claims Tribunal has held that the application filed by the State was not maintainable and also it was barred by limitation.

( 2 ) IT is not shown before me how a CRP is maintainable. The claims tribunal ex-facie is not a Court subordinate to the High Court so as to maintain the revision petition under Section 115 CPC.

( 3 ) CIVIL Revision Petition is therefore dismissed as being not maintainable. No costs.

--- *** ---

.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document