Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 42 (0.33 seconds)The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
State Of Haryana vs Darshana Devi & Ors on 12 February, 1979
In view of the observations of this Court in State of Haryana v. Darshana Devi 1979 ACJ 205 (SC), we are of the view that the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act, is a civil court for the purposes of Section 25 of the Civil Procedure Code. We are satisfied that the cases before us are fit cases for being transferred from the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Moradabad to the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Delhi.
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Thakur Jugal Kishore Sinha vs Sitamarhi Central Co-Operative Bank ... on 13 March, 1967
In the case of Pranesh Debnath , a learned single Judge of this Court relying on decisions of the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Darshana Devi 1979 ACJ 205 (SC) and in Thakur Jugal Kishore Sinha v. Sitamarhi Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. held that Claims Tribunal constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act is subordinate to the High Court within the meaning of Section 115, Civil Procedure Code and revision, therefore, lie to the High Court against any order passed by such Tribunal.
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
M/S. Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd vs Shyam Sundar Jhunjhunwala And Others on 25 April, 1961
In Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachilhu (1992) Supp 2 SCC 651, the observations in the case of Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Shyam Sunder Jhunjhunwala , were quoted with approval and it was said that where there was a Us an affirmation by one party and denial by another, the dispute involved the rights and obligations of the parties to it and the authority was called upon to decide it, there was an exercise of judicial power. That authority was called a Tribunal if it did not have all the trappings of a court.
Article 136 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Sarjubai vs Gurudip Singh And Ors. on 2 September, 1994
In the case of Sarjubai v. Gurudip Singh , a Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court had held as follows (para 13):