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

1993 Supreme(MP) 688

P.P.NAOLEKAR
Vishnu Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Liladhar – Respondent


Advocates:
S.K. Upadhyaya for petitioners; Vijay Shukla, H.S. Ruprah with Smt. A.K. Ruprah for respondents; Deepak Verma and Ravindra Shrivastava Amicus Curiae.

ORDER

P.P. Naolekar, J. -- 1. This order shall also govern disposal of M.C.C. No. 4/93 (Vinod Kumar v. Liladhar & ors), M.C.C. No. 5/93 (Smt. Gayatri Devi v. Liladhar) and M.C.C. No. 6/93 (Kapoor Chand v. Liladhar). The question involved in these petitions is of general public importance and is of every day occurrence, and therefore, I requested Shri Deepak Verma and Shri Ravindra Shrivastava, Advocates, to appear as Amicus Curiae. I must record my thanks for their able assistance to this Court at a short notice in-spite of their pre-occupation and responsibilities. The question is whether the High Court has power and jurisdiction to transfer a case from Jabalpur Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal to Bilaspur Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal constituted by the State Government for a particular area by notification issued under section 165 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, exercising powers under section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. Arguments of the counsel were spread over on three aspects. Whether the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred as the' Act'), with the rules framed there under, is a self-contained code and therefore, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has applicat























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