Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Ram Swaroop Vs. Ram Chandra

Ram Swaroop vs Ram Chandra

Disposition Appeal dismissed Court Allahabad Decided Nov 17, 1994
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/471068

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Allahabad High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
F.A.F.O. No. 748 of 1992
Subject
Motor Vehicles
Disposition
Appeal dismissed

Case Summary

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

-

Key legal issue
Motor Vehicles
Outcome / disposition
Appeal dismissed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ram Swaroop

Advocate A.K. Saxena, Adv.

Respondent

Ram Chandra

Legal References

Reported In
1995ACJ1211

Excerpt

- v.p. goel, j.1. owner of motor vehicle is appellant under section 173 of the motor vehicles act, 1988.2. claim petition was filed beyond the period of limitation. the same having been condoned by the impugned order, appeal has been filed. proceeding is yet pending adjudication to consider the question of direction to pay compensation. no appeal lies against the order allowing the application for condonation of delay under section 173 of the motor vehicles act, 1939.3. accordingly, appeal is dismissed as not maintainable.

Full Judgment

V.P. Goel, J.

1. Owner of motor vehicle is appellant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

2. Claim petition was filed beyond the period of limitation. The same having been condoned by the impugned order, appeal has been filed. Proceeding is yet pending adjudication to consider the question of direction to pay compensation. No appeal lies against the order allowing the application for condonation of delay under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.

3. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed as not maintainable.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial