Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 24 (0.32 seconds)Section 110D in Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 [Entire Act]
Nirmala Bala Ghose And Another vs Balai Chand Ghose And Ors on 29 March, 1965
(Emphasis added)
In Nirmala Bala's case , the court held that "where in appeal, the court reaches a conclusion which is inconsistent with that of the court appealed from, and in adjusting the right claimed by the appellant, it is found necessary to grant relief to person who has not appealed, the power under Order 41, Rule 33 may properly be invoked".
Kanaya Ram And Ors. vs Rajender Kumar And Ors. on 5 December, 1984
Kanaya Ram v. Rajender Kumar , was relied on in this Court's decision in Shamsher Khan v. M.P, Electricity Board 1988 ACJ 394 (MP), in taking the view that change in law having bearing on the rights of parties before the appellant court is required to be taken note of under Order 41, Rule 33, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 to mould relief accordingly. That decision was on Section 110-D of the Act and compensation was enhanced on the basis of guidelines provided in Section 92-A of the Act despite inapplicability in terms of that provision.
Smt. Sarmaniya Bai And Ors. vs Madhya Pradesh Rajya Parivahan Nigam ... on 5 April, 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.
Income Tax Officer vs M.K. Mohammed Kunhi on 11 September, 1968
For doing so, the High Court must possess all powers in that behalf to make effective exercise of its jurisdiction; see, in this connection, I.T.O. v. Mohd. Kunhi AIR 1969 SC 430.
Smt. Chameli Wati And Anr. vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi And Ors. on 25 April, 1985
In Jagbir Singh v. General Manager, Punjab Roadways 1987 ACJ 15 (SC), relying on Narcinva V. Kamat's case, (supra) and Chameli Wati's case, (supra), their Lordhsips enhanced similarly the interest to 12 per cent per annum and made that payable from the date of application to the date of payment.
Jagbir Singh & Ors vs General Manager, Punjab Roadways & Ors on 24 October, 1986
12. Brief survey, we also make of this Court's decisions cited at the Bar, bearing on the interpretation of Section 110-CC, Shamsher Khan's case, 1988 ACJ 394 (MP), took note of Narcinva V. Kamat's case 1985 ACJ 397 (SC) and Jagbir Singh's case, 1987 ACJ 15(SC) and took the view that the court was "bound by the supreme judicial dicta" and on that basis interest on the enhanced amount of compensation was raised to 12 per cent per annum from the date of the application. Five Division Benches of this Court have also taken the same view following the same or similar reasoning.
Ramesh Chandra vs Randhir Singh And Ors.(Vice Versa) on 3 May, 1990
In a recent decision rendered on 3.5.1990 in the case of Ramesh Chandra v. Randhir Singh , the view taken is that for award of interest, no pleading is necessary, while in the decision rendered on 15.11.1989, in the case of RL. Gupta v. Jupiter General Insurance Company , in categorical terms, the Apex Court observed that "there have been several orders of this Court in recent cases in compensation disputes where the court has awarded 12 per cent interest" and on that ground, their Lordships raised interest also from 6 per cent to 12 per cent while enhancing the compensation.