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

1983 Supreme(Mad) 369

SATHIADEV
Rajeswari – Appellant
Versus
United India Insurance Co. , Madras – Respondent


Advocates:
K. Subramaniam, for Petitioner, M. V. Chandran, for Respondents.

Judgement

ORDER :- Petitioner filed M.O.P. 523 of 1982 on the file of the Additional Sub. Judge II. Chengalpattu, claiming compensation under S.100-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, since her husband was killed in a motor accident that took place at 7-30 p.m on 13-7-1982, near Kothari Chemicals in Ennore Express Road, when he was driving the van TN 7815. She claims that all the witnesses to be examined are in Madras and it would be extremely difficult for her to take all the witnesses to attend several hearings by Tribunal, located in Chengalpattu and by transfer of the proceedings, none of the parties to the proceedings would be prejudiced, if the Tribunal at Madras is directed to hear the matter.

2. On behalf of the first respondent-Insurance Company it is stated that by invoking S.24 C.P.C., the proceedings cannot be transferred, and hence, this petition is not maintainable.

3. This petition is filed by invoking S.24 and S.151, C.P.C. and during the course of the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner sought for permission to include Art. 227 of the Constitution and, accordingly it has been granted.

4. Article 227 of the Constitution of India reads as follows-

"(i) Every High Court s


















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