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

2005 Supreme(Jhk) 303

ALTAMAS KABIR, R.K.MERATHIA
Kaveri Roy – Appellant
Versus
Bhagmat Tudu – Respondent


JUDGMENT

1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was filed on 26th July, 2004 and thereafter certain defects were noticed by the department. Out of five defects No. 2 to 5 have since been ignored and only defect No. 1 which relates to non-supply of the particulars of the parties and detailed address in the certified copy of the judgment/award appealed against, has been kept for consideration today.

2. Mr. Ananda Sen, learned Advocate pointed out that the practice of drawing up of a decree after passing of the Award by the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal in terms of Section 168 of the Act was discontinued pursuant to a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited v. Hariman Mahto and Ors., 2003 (1) JCR 573 (Jhr). wherein it was observed that the provisions of Section 168 of the aforesaid Act merely require the making of an Award, but that the Tribunal after passing of a judgment, had also taken the burden of drawing up and preparing a formal Award on the basis of the judgment. The Division Bench was of the view that there was no such requirement in the 1988, Act and that the Award pronounced



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