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

1996 Supreme(Bom) 36

R.M.LODHA
Gurucharansing Hardayalsing Sethi – Appellant
Versus
Narhari Laxman Shinde and others – Respondent


JUDGMENT - R.M. LODHA, J. :---By this writ petition filed under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is seeking to challenge the order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Buldana on 14-3-1995 rejecting the application filed by the applicant for setting aside the ex-parte award dated 1-3-1993.

2. On 5-4-1995 when the writ petition came up for motion hearing, Mr Khapre, the learned Counsel for petitioner prayed for time to study the matter whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is a 'Court subordinate' under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, the 'C.P.C.') and if so, whether the writ petition filed by the petitioner could be entertained or not. On 17-7-1995 the notice before admission was issued to the respondents and in response thereto, Mr. A.S. Jaiswal, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2.

3. According to Mr. Khapre, the learned Counsel for petitioner, in exercise of the powers provided under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the State Government has framed the Maharashtra Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 and Rule 276 of the said rules provides procedure to be followed by the Cl
















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