Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 26 (0.89 seconds)
Documents citing Smt. Sarmaniya Bai And Ors. vs Madhya Pradesh Rajya Parivahan Nigam ... on 5 April, 1990

Smt. Pushpa Mishra And Ors. vs Mact And Anr. on 29 March, 2004

3. Having brooded over the submissions. I find that the jurisdiction of the Claims Tribunal to enforce its award is not limited to only one method, namely issuance of certificate to the Collector for recovery of the amount due under the award as arrears of Land Revenue. The Tribunal possesses inherent jurisdiction to enforce its own award in accordance also with the provisions of CPC as applicable to execution of orders and decree passed by a Civil Court. Full Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Smt. Sarmaniya Bai v. Madhya Pradesh Rajya Parivahan Nigam (supra), indicated thus :
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Fida Ali And Ors. on 8 November, 1994

7. A Full Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Sarmaniya Bai v. M.P. Rajya Parivahan Nigam 1990 ACJ 862 (MP), has held that the Claims Tribunal has the inherent powers, apart from the powers specified in the Act and the Rules, for acting judicially in trying the case of a civil nature and enforcing the decision rendered by it. Another Full Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Prakramchand v. Chuttan 1991 ACJ 1051 (MP), has held, relying upon the earlier Full Bench decision in Sarmaniya' Bai (supra) that those provisions of Civil Procedure Code, the application of which is not explicitly excluded by or under the Act to a proceeding thereunder, may be invoked by the parties.
Allahabad High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Kishan Lal vs Mehndi Hasan And Another on 8 August, 2000

20. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Full Bench decision in the case of Prakramchand u. Chuttan alias Alim and others. 1991 ACJ 1051 overruling Kamla Bai's case, 1991 ACJ 533 (MP), of that Court held that in appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, the High Court can act without cross-objection and enhance interest to 12 per cent per annum payable from the date of application till realisation, on the compensation awarded.
Allahabad High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 4 - U S Tripathi - Full Document

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Arun Kumar Maitra And Anr. on 13 April, 2005

In view of the larger bench decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Sarmaniya Bai (supra), it appears to this Court that the first question of law as formulated above is no longer a res Integra. Accordingly, by following the said larger bench decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court I hold that the provision of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure is applicable to the Tribunal for recovery of the awarded money under Section 174 of the said Act.
Calcutta High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 3 - J Bhattacharya - Full Document

Madhya Pradesh State Road Trans. Corpn. vs Praveer Kumar Bhatnagar And Anr. on 26 November, 1992

5. This court's Full Bench in Sarmaniya Bai v. Madhya Pradesh Rajya Parivahan Nigam 1990 ACJ 862 (MP), has taken the view that the Tribunal possessed jurisdiction exercisable by civil court ordinarily to enforce claims founded on tortious liability and the Tribunal is, therefore, possessed of inherent jurisdiction like a civil court to execute its own award; the powers enjoyed by it under provisions of M.V. Act do not exclude or impinge upon its inherent jurisdiction to deal with matters with respect to which no specific provision is made in the M.V. Act or under the Rules framed thereunder. The new forum's jurisdiction (albeit with respect to cases of tortious liability arising from a motor accident only) is obviously plenary like a civil court's; so ouster of its jurisdiction is not to be readily accepted notwithstanding claimant's option contemplated under Section 110-AA (old), 167 (new), to go to Workmen's Compensation Court in appropriate cases.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Dimple vs Lajjaram And Ors. on 9 April, 1992

6. Reliance Mr. Chaturvedi has placed on this court's Full Bench decision in Sarmaniya Bai v. Madhya Pradesh Rajya Parivahan Nigam 1990 ACJ 862 (MP). In that case the point mooted and decided was of the competence of the Claims Tribunal to execute its own order exercising its inherent powers in virtue not of the provisions of Section 3, Civil Procedure Code but of Order 21, Civil Procedure Code. We do not think if the head-note (8) in JLJ has correctly stated the court's opinion that the Tribunal is a 'civil court'.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Prakramchand vs Chuttan Ai Ias Alim And Ors. on 30 November, 1990

8. Recent Full Bench decision of this Court in Sarmaniya Bai v. Madhya Pradesh Rajya Pariyahan Nigam , has held that such provisions of Civil Procedure Code, the application of which is not explicitly excluded thereunder or under the Act to a proceeding under the Act, may be invoked by the parties and in that view of the matter, the contention of the claimant that the provisions of Order 21, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 were applicable to the execution of an award passed by the Tribunal was upheld. In our view, the High Court hearing an appeal under Section 110-D of the Act, for same reason, is entitled to exercise jurisdiction contemplated under Order 41, Rule 33, Civil Procedure Code to give necessary relief to the claimant due to him under the law. Powers which are to be exercised in appeal under Section 110-D are widely stated inasmuch as any person 'aggrieved' in any manner by the award passed by the Claims Tribunal is entitled to prefer the appeal except when the amount in dispute in the appeal is less than Rs. 2,000/-. The provision does not expressly limit the powers and jurisdiction which the High Court may exercise in the appeal filed. What is clear, however, is that High Court is vested with the jurisdiction to adjudge the legality of the award and to give necessary relief to the parties before it because it is duty-bound, acting as an appellate court, to examine the legality, propriety of the award as also due exercise of jurisdiction vested in it, by the Tribunal.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 31 - Full Document

K.M. Nizam And Anr. vs Union Bank Of India And Ors. on 14 February, 1991

The other ruling relied on by the learned counsel i.e. Sarmaniya v. M.P.R.P. Nigam (supra) (Full Bench) is on the point that the provisions of Order 33, C.P.C. are applicable in an application under Section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal because it is a Civil Court and the provisions of Sections 24, 25 and Order 33, C.P.C. are applicable. There is no dispute to this effect.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Sarjubai vs Gurudip Singh And Ors. on 2 September, 1994

12. A Full Bench of this court in case of Sarmaniya Bai v. Madhya Pradesh Rajya Parivahan Nigam 1990 ACJ 862 (MP), wherein the question was whether the Claims Tribunal passing an award under the provisions of the Act for compensation to claimants for death or injuries lacks jurisdiction to enforce its award adopting procedure provided under the Code of Civil Procedure, exercising its inherent jurisdiction in that regard, referring to the provisions of Section 110-C and Rule 297 of the Rules, in para 15, relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Darshana Devi 1979 ACJ 205 (SC) and a decision of Apex Court in case of Bhagwati Devi v. I.S. Goel 1983 ACJ 123 (SC), wherein it has been held that the Claims Tribunal was a civil court, it observed that the Tribunal is a court of civil judicature which is required to follow the procedure prescribed under Code of Civil Procedure in that regard. It is obviously an essential attribute of the Claims Tribunal that it acts judicially and exercises civil jurisdiction in deciding claims relating to civil wrongs and civil liability, of tortfeasors and liability also of insurers, arising out of statutory and contractual obligations. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal in applying any provision of the Code of Civil Procedure for exercising any power in accordance with the procedure prescribed in Code of Civil Procedure is not impaired in any manner as it has got all the trappings of the civil court. In para 19, it was further observed that the true character of the Claims Tribunal is exposed by the requirement of the same being constituted by judicially trained persons of high calibre such as a District Judge or a High Court Judge, as per Section 110(3). Factually, the position is more potent and patent in this State as District Judges and Additional District Judges are appointed under Section 110 to perform duties of Claims Tribunal as per Section 3, MP. Civil Courts Act, 'civil courts' are constituted with them (among others), in this State. Therefore, the court held by reading the provisions that the Claims Tribunal exercises jurisdiction of a civil court and as such it has jurisdiction to execute its own award under the provisions of Order 21 of Code of Civil Procedure.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 6 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next