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

2014 Supreme(MP) 363

S.K.GANGELE, S.K.PALO
Manish Kumar Sharma – Appellant
Versus
Jagdish – Respondent


Advocates:
H. K. Shukla for applicant; R. K. S. Kushwah for respondent No.1.

ORDER

1. This review petition has been filed by the unsuccessful appellant under Order 47 rule 1 of CPC for re-calling the order dated 9.9.2009, passed by Single Bench of this Court in Misc. Appeal No. 1116/2009, whereby the aforesaid appeal, preferred by the appellant Manish Kumar Sharma against the rejection of application under Order 9 rule 13 of CPC has been rejected.

2. Brief facts just necessary for disposal of this review petition is that ;

Non-applicant No.1 Jagdish filed a claim petition under section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.11,36,000/- from the applicant in this case (non-applicant No.1 (Manish Kumar Sharma) and non-applicant No.2 Kumar Pal Singh the owner and driver of the offending bus, on the ground that the applicant Jagdish was travelling as bona fide passenger in Bus bearing No.M.P.06/B.0031 on 18.4.1994. The bus owned Manish Kumar Sharma, was being driven by non-applicant No.2 Kumar Pal Singh rashly and negligently due to which it met with an accident. An FIR was lodged at Police Station, Kailaras. The applicant claimed that he sustained grievous injuries. The 1st Additional Motor Vehicle Accident Tribunal, Morena in Claim Ca
















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