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

1989 Supreme(MP) 114

G.G.SOHANI, D.M.DHARMADHIKARI
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD – Appellant
Versus
PRITAMLAL – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
P.C.NAIK, UMESH TRIVEDI,

JUDGMENT :

( 1. ) THE present revision has been placed before the division Bench on the reference by the learned single Judge Honble Awasthy, J. The legal question referred for decision of the Division Bench is, whether an order awarding compensation under section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, on the principle of "no fault liability" is appealable under section 110-D of the said Act or only revision under section 115 Civil Procedure Court is tonable against the order granting such compensation.

( 2. ) THE learned single Judge noticed that no consistent procedure was being followed in this court and in some cases (e. g. M. A. No. 50/85, decided on 24-2-1986, by Hon. Gulab Gupta, J.) the appeals were entertained against the order of compensation under section 92-A of the Act and in some cases (e. g. C. R. No. 625/83, decided on 9-7-1985 by Hon. S. Awasthy, J.) revisions were tertained and decided. He has, therefore, referred the matter for decision of the Larger Bench. We have heard arguments advanced by Shri Prakash Naik, advocate for the petitioner and Shri Umesh Trivedi, Advocate, for the respondents. Both of them have contended that an appeal is tenable under section 110-D















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