Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MULKH RAJ versus DHARAMBIR ETC.

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Mulkh Raj v. Dharambir etc. - CR-457-1998 [2006] RD-P&H 446 (31 January 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Case No. : C.R.No. 457 of 1998

Date of Decision : January 25, 2006.

Mulkh Raj .... Petitioner

Vs.

Dharambir etc. .... Respondent

Coram : Hon'ble Mr.Justice Viney Mittal.

* * *

Present : Mr.B.R.Gupta, Advocate

for the petitioner.

JUDGMENT :

An application filed by the petitioner Mulkh Raj, for setting aside the ex-parte award compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the claimants, dated October 09, 1993, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hisar, was dismissed vide order dated September 05, 1997. The aforesaid order has been challenged by Mulkh Raj through the present petition.

The learned Tribunal, in the impugned order, has noticed that the award had been passed on October 09, 1993 and Mulkh Raj has filed the application on October 25, 1995. In these circumstances, the application filed by him has been treated as barred by limitation and therefore, has been dismissed, on that count also.

I have heard Shri B.R.Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and have also perused the record of the case.

Shri Gupta has argued that the application had been filed by the petitioner Mulkh Raj after an order of attachment was passed by the Tribunal, attaching his property. In these circumstances, it has been claimed that the application had been filed after he had come to know of the ex- parte award dated October 09, 1993. On a query put by the court, the learned counsel very fairly states that the order of attachment has been passed by the Executing Court on January 12, 1995. In these circumstances, there is absolutely no justification in filing the application on October 25,

1995. The aforesaid delay has not been explained at all by the petitioner. Even otherwise, the learned Tribunal has noticed that as per his own saying, C.R.No. 457 of 1998 : 2 :

Mulkh Raj had retired from service on September 30, 1993 and had returned to his village. The application in question has been filed after the expiry of more than two years. The aforesaid fact has also been taken into consideration to dismiss the application filed by the applicant.

Nothing has been shown that the order passed by the learned Tribunal suffers from any error of jurisdiction or is contrary to law.

I find no merit in the present petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.

January 25, 2006 ( VINEY MITTAL )

monika JUDGE


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.