Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.56 seconds)Andhra Pradesh Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956
Section 49 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Smt. Sangeeta Namdev vs Indrapath @ Munna Yadav on 31 January, 2023
In Sangeeta Namdev's case, High Court of
Madhya Pradesh dealt with more or less similar situation
and has taken a view that the amount in dispute in the
appeal has to be considered for the purpose of testing
whether the appeal under consideration is barred under
Section 173(2) of MV Act.
Abeda Begum And Ors. vs Rajput Anasuya on 23 March, 2007
Considering the language employed in sub-section
(2) of Section 173 and also the judgments referred to
above which have dealt with interpretation of said
provision, there cannot be any ambiguity or two opinions
for the purpose of entertaining appeal under Section
173(1). The amount in dispute in the appeal has to be
considered. When the amount of compensation awarded
and also interest thereon has been challenged in the
appeal, both have to be reckoned for the purpose of
assessing the amount in dispute. On doing so, if the
amount in dispute in the appeal exceeds the ceiling
monetary limit of one lakh, bar prescribed under Section
173(2) of MV Act would not apply, thereby, the appeal
definitely be maintainable.
Manager, United India Insurance Co. ... vs Gandelli Yellamma And Ors. on 7 February, 1997
In Gandelli Yellamma's case, Court was
considering appeal which was below monetary limit,
however, as appellant therein canvassed that the appeal
challenges liability but not the quantum of compensation
and bar under Section 173(2) applied only to cases
disputing quantum but not liability, the said submission
came to be negatived by holding that there is no
distinction between the appeals challenging liability and
one challenging the quantum of compensation. Since in
that particular case, the value of appeal admittedly was
less than the monetary limit, the same would have any
relevance to the facts of the present case.
1