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

HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
DIPIKA RAJESHKUMAR PATEL WD/O RAJESHKUMAR VISHNUBHAI PATEL – Appellant
Versus
PRAVINSINH R VAGHELA – Respondent


ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Rule. Mr. Kaushal S.Jani and Mr. Dhruvik K.Patel learned advocates waive service of notice of rule on behalf of respective respondents. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally today. Rule is fixed forthwith.

2. Mr. Jigar D.Dave, learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that the present petitioners are the claimants in the Motor Accident Claim Petition No.108 of 2019 filed before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (Aux.), Ahmedabad, challenging the order, below Exhibit-17, filed by respondent no.3 – Indusind Bank praying to delete it as a party to the matter, which came to be allowed vide order dated 31.07.2021.

3. Exhibit-17 was moved by the respondent no.3 – Indusind Bank under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure (‘CPC’ for short) stating that Bank is not owner of the vehicle and they have hypothecated the vehicle - Ashok Leyland Company’s Dalu bearing no.GJ-27-X-1398, which was involved in the accident. It was urged before the Tribunal that the ownership and control of the vehicle was with respondent nos.1 and 2.

3.1 The learned Tribunal had made the observation that respondent no.3 had sanctioned the loan for purchasing of the

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