T.N.SINGH
MAHILA RAMDEI – Appellant
Versus
NAND KUMAR – Respondent
( 1 ) RESPONDENTS have been duly served. Except respondent No. 1 the other two have not appeared as yet, though this appeal was admitted on 20-1-1987. This is a matter in which the constitutional compulsion is so heavy and pressing as to call for instant disposal that hearing cannot be deferred any further on any ground whatsoever. Accordingly, I propose not to consider or make any order on I. A. No. III filed in this matter. That application, made in this Court on 9-7-1987, shall be disposed of by the Tribunal when the matter goes back and steps are taken thereat to implead legal representatives of deceased Respondent No. 2, Shivnarayan. At this stage it will suffice to say that his death took place on 28-6-1987, during pendency of this appeal and indeed after he was duly served.
( 2 ) I see no reason to take today a different view in this matter and indeed it is necessary only to reiterate the view taken by me on 20-1-1987 in admitting the appeal, which has to be merely buttressed appropriately. By the impugned order the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has dismissed the claim-petition preferred by the instant petitioner refusing the prayer for an adjournment made o
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.