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

1988 Supreme(Mad) 312

SRINIVASAN
Kanniammal and Another – Appellant
Versus
P. Narayanan and Another – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:J. Mahalingam, M. Palani, M.V. Chandran, Advocates.

Judgment :-

This is a petition to transfer M.O.P. No. 514/87 from the file of the District Court, Vellore to the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Madras.

2. In the affidavit filed in support of this petition it is stated that the petitioners and 1st respondent are all residents of Madras.

The 1st respondent is the owner of the lorry. The 2nd respondent is the Insurance Company having its registered office at Madras. It is further stated that the eyewitnesses to the occurrence are at Madras, and therefore, the convenience of parties require the proceedings to be transferred to Madras.

3. Learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent raises an objection, as to the maintainability of the application under S.24, C.P.C. According to him the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is not a Court subordinate to this Court, within the meaning of S.24, C.P.C., and that a petition for transfer of the proceeding cannot be sustained. He relies upon two decisions of this Court viz., (1) Varalakshmi Sundar v. Meeran, (1980) 93 Mad LW 540 and (2) Annamalai v. M. Arumugaswamy, (1982) 95 Mad LW 687. In the former decision, Ratnam, J. has taken the view, that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is not a Court















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