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

1968 Supreme(P&H) 185

R.S.SARKARIA, R.S.NARULA
Municipal Committee, Jullundur City – Appellant
Versus
Romesh Saggi – Respondent


Judgment

Narula, J.

1. In this appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act (4 of 1939), as subsequently amended by Act 100 of 1956, against an award, dated March 19, 1963, for Rs. 6,750.46 P. and costs, it was argued on behalf of the judgment-debtor appellant before Gurdev Singh, J., that the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hold that Raghbir Singh, the driver of the alleged offending vehicle was guilty of any rash or negligent act as Raghbir Singh had already been acquitted by this Court on August 14, 1961 (in Criminal Revision No. 312 of 1961) of the charge of rashness or negligence in respect of the same accident which gave rise to the claim under Section 110-A of the Act. In view of the conflict of authority on the abovesaid point, and the prima facie inclination of the learned Judge not to agree with the law laid down by Mahajan, J. in Sadhu Singh v. Punjab Roadways, Ambala City, 1968-70 Pun. L. R. 39 = (AIR 1968 Punj. 466), and in view of the further fact that this question is likely to arise in a large number of cases, the learned Single Judge has referred the following question for decision by a Division Bench:-

-

"Whether the judgment of a cri






































































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