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

2011 Supreme(Raj) 953

MOHAMMAD RAFIQ
Anita Bai @ Mamta Bai – Appellant
Versus
Banshi Lal – Respondent


Advocates Appeared
Sanjay Kumar Sharma, for Appellant;
M.K. Goyal, for Respondents

Hon'ble RAFIQ, J.—For stated reasons, delay of 32 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is accordingly allowed.

2. The claimant-appellant has also filed an application under Section 151 of the CPC for deleting the condition for submitting security by the respondent owner prior to disbursement of the award. Submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that imposition of aforesaid condition of furnishing security by the owner of the offending vehicle, is illegal.

3. Similar issue has been considered by coordinate benches of this Court in Smt. Rama and Balwant Singh, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.71/2006, Banwari Lal vs. Gopi Ram, S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.481/2000 (sic 481/2005) = RLW 2005-06 (Suppl.) Raj. 122, Sheoji Ram Mali vs. The Judge, ADJ (F.T.) No.2, Jaipur City and Others, Kumari Nargis vs. Karan Singh and Others, S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.356/2005 decided on 22.08.2006, Balveer Singh vs. Yogendra Singh and Others, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3268/2006, decided on 18.07.2008 and Mewa and Another vs. Mohd. Rafique and Others – S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10357/2008, decided on 07.10.2009, wherein it has be






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