Gujarat High Court
Vijaykumar Babulal Modi vs Gujarat State Road on 28 January, 2013
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Bhaskar Bhattacharya
VIJAYKUMAR BABULAL MODI....Applicant(s)V/SGUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION C/MCA/122/2013 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR DIRECTION) NO. 122 of 2013 In FIRST APPEAL NO. 2071 of 2005 ================================================================ VIJAYKUMAR BABULAL MODI....Applicant(s) Versus GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION & 1....Opponent(s) ================================================================ Appearance: MR.HIREN M MODI, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA Date : 28/01/2013 ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA) By this application, the appellant of a disposed of first appeal has prayed for clarification of the order passed by this Court and also by the Supreme Court dated 4th July, 2012 in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.13451 of 2012 and for direction upon the respondents to deposit further sum of Rs.6,54,879 with 9% interest from the date of filing of the main claim petition.
It appears that this Bench had already disposed of the first appeal preferred by the claimant by order dated 23rd December, 2011 by enhancing the amount to Rs.12,21,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum.
The owner of the vehicle has moved the Supreme Court of India in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.13451 of 2012 and the Supreme Court has passed a direction that 50% of the amount fixed by this Court should be deposited by the appellant before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal within four weeks, which may be withdrawn by the claimant. The Supreme Court further held that there will be stay of the remaining amount.
Therefore, if at all, according to the applicant, there is violation of any order passed by the Supreme Court directing deposit of the amount, in our view, complaint must be made before the said Court and not before this Court, which has already disposed of the appeal. We thus, find that in view of pendency of the appeal before the Supreme Court and in view of direction given by the Supreme Court in such appeal, there is no scope of entertaining the present application in a disposed of appeal. On that ground alone, we dispose of this application. We make it clear that we have otherwise not gone into the merit.
(BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, CJ.) (J.B.PARDIWALA, J.) shekhar Page 2 of 2