Sanjeev Sharma vs.sanjay and Ors.

Sanjeev Sharma vs Sanjay and Ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Dec 01, 2017

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1211046

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1211046
Court: Delhi High Court
Decided On: Dec 01, 2017
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sanjeev Sharma

Advocate Mr. Pankaj Seth

Respondent

Sanjay and Ors.

Excerpt

$~r-617 in the high court of delhi at new delhi decided on:1. t december, 2017 + mac. appeal no.1086/2012 and cm nos.17271/2012, 17273/2012 sanjeev sharma through: nemo. versus ..... appellant sanjay and ors. .….respondents through: mr. pankaj seth, advocate for coram: hon'ble mr. justice r.k.gauba r-3. judgment (oral) 1. the appellant was the claimant before the tribunal, in a motor accident claim case (suit no.455/11) instituted on 24.09.2011, seeking compensation for the injuries suffered in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 14.08.2011. the tribunal, by judgment dated 20.04.2012, awarded rs.2,53,378/- as compensation, fastening the liability on the third respondent (insurer) of the offending vehicle to pay, the said amount inclusive of rs.1,45,900/- towards medical expenses, rs.9,000/- for special diet and conveyance, rs.23,478/- for loss of income and rs.75,000/- under the head of pain and suffering.2. the appeal was filed with the grievance that the award is deficient. mac app. no.1086/2012 page 1 of 2 3. the appeal was put in the list of ‘regulars’ vide order dated 26.02.2016 to come up on its own turn. when called out for hearing, there is no appearance for the appellant. the matter has been considered with the assistance of the counsel for the third respondent. record has been perused.4. the prime grievance in the appeal is that the income tax return (itr) for the year 2010-2011 was wrongly ignored by the tribunal and, therefore, the income was under assessed.5. on perusal of the record, it is found that the copy of the itr submitted did not even bear any endorsement of its submission with the income tax department. the tribunal did not, therefore, consider it proper to proceed on its basis and rightly so.6. the appeal is devoid of substance and is dismissed.7. the pending application also stands disposed of. december01 2017 vk r.k.gauba, j.mac app. no.1086/2012 page 2 of 2

Full Judgment

$~R-617 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:

1. t December, 2017 + MAC. APPEAL No.1086/2012 and CM Nos.17271/2012, 17273/2012 SANJEEV SHARMA Through: Nemo. versus ..... Appellant SANJAY AND ORS. .….Respondents Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Advocate for CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA R-3. JUDGMENT (ORAL) 1. The appellant was the claimant before the tribunal, in a motor accident claim case (Suit No.455/11) instituted on 24.09.2011, seeking compensation for the injuries suffered in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 14.08.2011. The tribunal, by judgment dated 20.04.2012, awarded Rs.2,53,378/- as compensation, fastening the liability on the third respondent (insurer) of the offending vehicle to pay, the said amount inclusive of Rs.1,45,900/- towards medical expenses, Rs.9,000/- for special diet and conveyance, Rs.23,478/- for loss of income and Rs.75,000/- under the head of pain and suffering.

2. The appeal was filed with the grievance that the award is deficient. MAC App. No.1086/2012 Page 1 of 2 3. The appeal was put in the list of ‘Regulars’ vide order dated 26.02.2016 to come up on its own turn. When called out for hearing, there is no appearance for the appellant. The matter has been considered with the assistance of the counsel for the third respondent. Record has been perused.

4. The prime grievance in the appeal is that the income tax return (ITR) for the year 2010-2011 was wrongly ignored by the tribunal and, therefore, the income was under assessed.

5. On perusal of the record, it is found that the copy of the ITR submitted did not even bear any endorsement of its submission with the income tax department. The tribunal did not, therefore, consider it proper to proceed on its basis and rightly so.

6. The appeal is devoid of substance and is dismissed.

7. The pending application also stands disposed of. DECEMBER01 2017 vk R.K.GAUBA, J.

MAC App. No.1086/2012 Page 2 of 2

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2017 Same Parties Sanjeev Sharma vs Sanjay and Ors. Same Subject Land Acquisition