SHANTI DEVI Vs. GENERAL MANAGER HARYANA ROADWAYS AMBALA
LAWS(P&H)-1971-3-3
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on
March 15,1971
SHANTI DEVI
Appellant
VERSUS
GENERAL MANAGER, HARYANA ROADWAYS, AMBALA
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
SPECIAL OFFICER,SALSETTE BUILDING SITES V. DOSSABHAI BEZONJI [REFERRED TO]MANAVIKRAMAN TIRUMALPAD V. COLLECTOR OF NILGIRIS [REFERRED TO]
HANSKUMAR KISHAN CHAND'S CASE [REFERRED TO]
COLLECTOR VARANASI VS. GAURI SHANKER MISRA [REFERRED TO]
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI VS. KULDIP LAL BHANDARI [REFERRED TO]
RAJIYABI COSMAN SAYI VS. MACKINON MACHINAZIE [REFERRED TO]
FAZILKA DABWALI TRANSPORT CO PRIVATE VS. MADAN LAL [REFERRED TO]
SECRETARY OF STATE VS. HINDUSTAN CO-OPERATIVE INSURANCE SOCIETY LTD [REFERRED TO]
SPECIAL OFFICER SALSETTE BUILDING SITES VS. DOSSABHAI BEZONJI MOTIVALLA [REFERRED TO]
RANGOON BOTATOUNG COMPANY, LIMITED VS. COLLECTOR [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
N N KASHYAP VS. RATTI RAM [LAWS(DLH)-1985-7-28] [REFERRED]U P STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. JANKI DEVI [LAWS(ALL)-1982-3-26] [REFERRED TO]
PREM PAL SINGH VS. POKAR RAM [LAWS(ALL)-2004-12-8] [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL GAFFAR VS. MOHAMMAD PHAPHOO [LAWS(J&K)-1984-9-3] [REFERRED TO]
H P ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. PT JAI RAM [LAWS(HPH)-1979-6-1] [REFERRED TO]
UTTAM SINGH VS. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD [LAWS(MPH)-1987-12-11] [REFERRED TO]
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD VS. SARASWATI BAI [LAWS(MPH)-1994-9-2] [REFERRED TO]
R GOVINDARAJULU VS. S DHARMAN [LAWS(MAD)-1984-7-17] [REFERRED TO]
EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION MADRAS VS. SHANMUGHA THEATRES COIMBATORE [LAWS(MAD)-1997-6-5] [REFERRED TO]
DHONDUBAI VS. PROPRIETOR JANKIDAS KHANDSARI SUGAR FACTORY PARTNERS AND OWNERS [LAWS(BOM)-1990-9-17] [REFERRED TO]
GANGWANI AND CO VS. SARASWATI WD O MANIRAM BANEWAR [LAWS(BOM)-2001-4-31] [REFERRED TO]
PRITPAL SINGH VS. NEW SURAJ TRANSPORT CO P LTD [LAWS(P&H)-1973-3-3] [REFERRED TO]
TRILOKI NATH BHARGAVA VS. JASWANT KAUR [LAWS(P&H)-1975-3-12] [REFERRED TO]
DELHI BHIWANI TRANSPORT COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED VS. RAM NIVAS SUREKHA [LAWS(P&H)-1979-11-1] [REFERRED TO]
MAHLI DEVI VS. CHANDER BHAN [LAWS(DLH)-1995-3-9] [REFERRED]
K PREMAVALLI VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-1998-4-14] [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD VS. VEENA [LAWS(KER)-2004-1-15] [REFERRED TO]
SHILA WANTI VS. R H KISHORE CHAND [LAWS(P&H)-1983-3-18] [REFERRED TO]
BARKAT SINGH VS. HANS RAJ PANDIT [LAWS(P&H)-1984-11-15] [REFERRED TO]
SONA DEVI VS. JAGDISH [LAWS(P&H)-1991-7-25] [REFERRED TO]
ANIRUDH PRASAD AMBASTA VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-1989-10-4] [REFERRED TO]
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD VS. SARDAR SADHU SINGH [LAWS(RAJ)-1993-8-49] [DISSENTED FROM]
STATE OF ASSAM VS. PRANESH DEBNATH [LAWS(GAU)-1991-10-5] [REFERRED TO]
CBAWLI DEVI AND ORS. VS. UNION OF INDIA (UOI) AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-1973-8-19] [REFERRED TO]
MAKHAN SINGH AND ORS. VS. GOPAL SINGH AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-1974-4-21] [REFERRED TO]
RAJ SINGH VS. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD [LAWS(J&K)-2001-12-19] [REFERRED TO]
THE STATE OF PUNJAB VS. SMT. LILA WATI [LAWS(P&H)-1980-2-43] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)THE short question that requires determination in these cases may be stated thus :-Does an appeal lie under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent against the decision of a learned Single Judge in appeal filed against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the claims Tribunal) given under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) ?
(2.)THE view of this Court as is evident from the Bench decision in Fazilka Dabwali transport Co. (Private) Ltd. v. Madan Lal, (1968) 70 Pun LR 9 = (AIR 1968 Punj 277), is that such an appeal is not competent under Clause 10 of the Letters patent. At the time of the preliminary hearing, the correctness of the said Bench decision was challenged and on the strength of a Full Bench decision of the Delhi high Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Kuldip Lal Bhandari, (1969) 71 Pun lr (Delhi Section) 318 = (AIR 1970 Delhi 37) (FB), it was contended that an appeal by under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent and that the Bench decision of this court in Fazilka Dabwali Transport Company's case (1968) 7o Pun LR 9 = (AIR 1968 Punj 277) did not lay down correct law. Finding some merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, these appeals were admitted and were ordered to be heard by a Full Bench. It is in these circumstances that these appeals have come up for hearing before us.
(3.)THE point which needs determination, was argued with ability by Mr. M. S. Jain, learned counsel for the appellant; it was contended by him that proceedings before the Claims Tribunal were not in the nature of arbitration proceedings and that this Court decides appeal under Section 110-D of the Act as a Court. It was also contended that the Claims Tribunal while disposing of the claims also acts as a Court. On the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant the first question that requires determination is the nature of the jurisdiction of the High court dealing with an appeal under S. 110-D of the Act.
(2.)THE view of this Court as is evident from the Bench decision in Fazilka Dabwali transport Co. (Private) Ltd. v. Madan Lal, (1968) 70 Pun LR 9 = (AIR 1968 Punj 277), is that such an appeal is not competent under Clause 10 of the Letters patent. At the time of the preliminary hearing, the correctness of the said Bench decision was challenged and on the strength of a Full Bench decision of the Delhi high Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Kuldip Lal Bhandari, (1969) 71 Pun lr (Delhi Section) 318 = (AIR 1970 Delhi 37) (FB), it was contended that an appeal by under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent and that the Bench decision of this court in Fazilka Dabwali Transport Company's case (1968) 7o Pun LR 9 = (AIR 1968 Punj 277) did not lay down correct law. Finding some merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, these appeals were admitted and were ordered to be heard by a Full Bench. It is in these circumstances that these appeals have come up for hearing before us.
(3.)THE point which needs determination, was argued with ability by Mr. M. S. Jain, learned counsel for the appellant; it was contended by him that proceedings before the Claims Tribunal were not in the nature of arbitration proceedings and that this Court decides appeal under Section 110-D of the Act as a Court. It was also contended that the Claims Tribunal while disposing of the claims also acts as a Court. On the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant the first question that requires determination is the nature of the jurisdiction of the High court dealing with an appeal under S. 110-D of the Act.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.