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

1990 Supreme(MP) 455

T.N.SINGH, S.K.DUBEY, SHACHEENDRA DWIVEDI
Prakramchand – Appellant
Versus
Chhuttan – Respondent


Advocates:
N.M. Haswani for appellant; N.D. Singhal for respondents.

ORDER

Dr. T.N. Singh, J. -- 1. When this appeal came for hearing before one of us (S.K. Dubey, J.), sitting singly, and it was heard at some length by him, he took the view that the interpretation of Section 110 CC, Motor Vehicle Act, 1939, for sport, the 'Act', in the context of Order 41, Rule 33, CPC by another learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co., Ltd. Indore v. Kamla Bai and others (1990 MPJR 140, hereinafter referred to as Kamlabai's case) was required to be examined by Larger Bench. Indeed, according to him, conflicted directly with this Court's decision in Manjula Devi Bhuta v. Manjushri Raha (1968 JLJ 189) and otherwise also, the question was of general importance to decide whether in appeal, the Court had power, jurisdiction or duty to award interest at a higher rate in the absence of cross-objection in that regard by the claimant.

2. Twin provisions, above-referred, are extracted in the extenso:

Section 110-CC, M.V. Act:

"110-CC. Award of interest where any claim is allowed.- Where any Court or Claims Tribunal allows a claim for compensation made under this Act, such Court or Tribunal may direct that in addition to the amou



















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