APEX COURT DIGEST - Jan.2017 [7]

Motor Accidents Claim - Tribunal conducted trial but return the claim petition to present in proper Tribunal feeling that it has no jurisdiction - The appellants filed review  petition  against  that
order which was also dismissed vide orders dated 10.04.2013.- Challenging this order,  the  appellants  filed  petition  under Article 227 of the Constitution in the High  Court  of  Calcutta  which  has
been dismissed by the High Court on the ground of delays and laches  stating that though MACT had dismissed the review petition of  the  appellants  vide orders dated 10.04.2013, revisional application challenging that  order  was filed only on 03.03.2015 after a delay of almost 2 years. - Apex court held that  It is  an  admitted  position  in  law  that  no  limitation  is prescribed for filing application under Article  227  of  the  Constitution - but  supposed to file  the same without unreasonable delay and if there is a delay that should be  duly and satisfactorily explained. - but  the High Court has dismissed  the  said  petition  by  observing  that though there is  no  statutory  period  of  limitation  prescribed,  such  a petition should be filed within a period of  limitation  as  prescribed  for
applications under Sections 115  of  the  Code  of  Civil  Procedure. -  This approach of the High Court cannot be countenanced.  -   in the absence of any limitation period, if the petition  is  filed  with  some delay but at the same time, the petitioner  gives  satisfactory  explanation
thereof, the petition should be entertained on merits. - Apex court on the consent of both parties fixed the compensation at 8 lakhs as no compensation was paid to the wife and children even after 91/2 years of accident.

Popular posts from this blog

Sec.20 of C.P.C - Territorial Jurisdiction - suit for recovery of money based on Contract - As per the admitted plaint averments, the office of the defendants is located in Pargi, the offer made by the petitioner was accepted at Pargi, the contract was entered between the petitioner and the respondents at Pargi and the same was executed within the jurisdiction of the Court at Pargi.- Plaint returned with objection - as an after thought added the acceptance of contract was received at Malkajgiri - Trail court returned the plaint to file in proper court - Revision - Their Lordships held that if filing of suit is based on making of a contract, the cause of action arises at the place where the offer is accepted and if the suit is based on termination of a contract, the cause of action arises at the place where such termination order is received. Admittedly, the suit is based on making of a contract and not on termination of the contract.- dismissed the revision - 2015 Telangana & A.P. msklawreports

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports

Section 5 of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 read with Rule 9(1)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Rules of 1989. - Powers of Revenue Court - Petitioners are the legal heirs of Late Sri A. Penta Reddy and respondents 1 to 3 are the brothers of Penta Reddy - Petitioners claimed as Separate Property - Brothers/Respondents claimed as Joint family Property - MRO held summary enquiry and held that it is Joint family Property - No Appeal to RDO - after the lapse of 12 years filed Revision directly to Joint Collector - JC. dismissed the revision - this Writ - Their Lordships held that in the absence of any suit for Declaration of title after receiving Rule 9 notice with in 3 months, the MRO can decide the dispute summarily - since no appeal is filed nor any suit is filed in any court - the orders of MRO can not be challanged after the lapse of 12 years - dismissed the revision - -2015 Telangana & A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS