Back
2018 Supreme(Jhk) 1935
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Amitav K. Gupta, J.
New India Assurance Co Ltd - Appellant
Versus
Manabendra Mahto - Respondent
Miscellaneous Appeal No. 264 of 2013
Decided On : 10-01-2018
Alok Lal, Adv., Prashant Kr Rahu, Adv.
The court has the discretion to condone the delay in appeal and make orders for the staying and disbursement of compensation based on the circumstances of the case.
Headnote:
Limitation Act - Condoning delay in appeal - The court condoned the delay in preferring the present appeal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act based on the reasons assigned in the supporting affidavit.
Fact of the Case:
The interlocutory application was filed to condone the delay in preferring the present appeal and for staying further proceeding in Execution Case No.5 of 2013.
Finding of the Court:
The court found sufficient cause to condone the delay and allowed the interlocutory application. It also ordered the appellant to deposit a part payment of the compensation amount and directed the court below to disburse a portion of the compensation to the claimants.
Issues: Delay in appeal, staying further proceeding in Execution Case No.5 of 2013, disbursement of compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court can condone the delay in appeal if sufficient cause is made out. The court can order the staying of further proceedings and direct the disbursement of compensation based on the circumstances of the case.
Final Decision: The delay in the appeal was condoned, the interlocutory application was allowed, and directions were given for the deposit and disbursement of the compensation.
JUDGMENT
Amitav K. Gupta, J. – I.A. No.7634 of 2013
This interlocutory application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of six days in preferring the present appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the respondents is in attendance.
3. Being satisfied with the reasons assigned in para nos.2 to 11 of the supporting affidavit, sufficient cause is made out, accordingly the delay is condoned.
4. I.A. No.7634 of 2013 stands allowed.
I.A. No.9727 of 2017
5. This interlocutory application has been filed under Order XLI Rule 5(5) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for staying further proceeding in Execution Case No.5 of 2013, pending in the court of the District JudgeVII cum Motor Vehicle accident Claims Tribunal, Dhanbad for realisation of the awarded compensation of Rs.23,42,650/ with interest @ 4% payable from the date of filing of the application.
6. Learned counsel has submitted that the court below should have considered the fact that the hotel which was being run is still in existence and the income of the deceased has not been affected, therefore, the awarded compensation is not in consonance with the material evidence and facts on record and prayed for staying further proceeding in the aforesaid execution case.
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondentsclaimants has opposed and submitted that till date save and except for the adinterim compensation of Rs.50,000/ no amount of the awarded compensation has been paid to the claimants.
8. Heard. If the appellant deposits Rs.24 lakhs by 28.02.2018 as part payment of the compensation amount in the court below, further proceeding in connection with Execution Case No.5 of 2013, pending the court of the District JudgeVII cum Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhanbad shall remain stayed.
9. The court below shall disburse Rs.14 lakhs in favour of the claimants on proper identification and on their furnishing an undertaking on the terms and conditions which the court below deems fit and proper to impose in terms of the award.
10. I.A. No.9727 of 2017 stands disposed off. Misc. Appeal No.264 of 2013.
11. Office to list this case on 12.03.2018 under the heading For Admission.
