Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SMT. MRIDULA GUPTA versus THE SPECIAL JUDGE, E.C. ACT, MACT AND ANOTHER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Smt. Mridula Gupta v. The Special Judge, E.C. Act, Mact And Another - WRIT - C No. 42882 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 13267 (8 August 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. In view of the nature of the order which is being passed, notice to the private respondent is not being issued. In case the said respondent is so aggrieved,  she may file an application for recall/variation/modification of this order.

The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 1.8.2006 whereby his application for cross examining the witness of the claimant has been rejected and a date has been fixed for the petitioner (who is the sole opposite party in the claim petition) to adduce evidence. The said application has been rejected because the petitioner has been seeking several adjournments and was given opportunity to cross examine the witness of the claimant which she did not avail. It has also been observed in the impugned order that the petitioner is trying to delay the decision of the claim petition.

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and considering the fact that since a valuable right of the petitioner would be affected in case if opportunity to cross examine the witness of the claimant is denied, in my view, the petitioner should be given a last opportunity for cross examination of the witness on payment of cost. As the matter has been pending before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for the last six years and it has been observed in the impugned order that the petitioner has been seeking adjournments time and again, it is provided that the petitioner shall be given one last opportunity to cross examine the witness of the claimant provided that on the next date fixed she deposits a cost of Rs. 3,000/- with the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal which shall be paid to the claimant.

Accordingly, this writ petition is partly allowed with the direction that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal shall give one more opportunity to the petitioner to cross examine the witness of the claimant on her depositing a cost of Rs.3,000/- and thereafter the Tribunal shall proceed to hear and decide the matter, in accordance with law, expeditiously without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either party.

No cost.

Dt/- 8.8.2006

dps

w.p. 42882.06


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.