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

1994 Supreme(Mad) 186

SRINIVASAN, ABDUL HADI
Managing Director, Thanthal Periyar Transport Corporation, Villupuram – Appellant
Versus
K. C. Karthiyayini – Respondent


Appearing Advocates:G. Muniratnamy, Advocates.

Judgment :-

ABDUL HADI, J.

In all these civil Miscellaneous Petitions one common question of law is involved and hence they are disposed of together. These civil miscellaneous petitions are for stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the awards passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals in three different Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals in three different motor Accidents Claims original petitions, pending disposal of three different civil miscellaneous petitions for excusing the delay in filing the respective civil miscellaneous appeal against the awards passed in the respective motor accidents claims original petition. The question is whether these stay petitions are maintainable in the teeth of Order 41, Rule 3A (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, in other words, whether Order 41, Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure is applicable to such civil miscellaneous appeals filed in this Court under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 or under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

2. Order 41, Rule 3A(3) reads as follows:-

"When an appeal is presented after the expiry of the period of limitation specified therefor, it shall be accompanied by an application suppor

































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