Narendra Singh and ors. Vs. Dhappo

Narendra Singh and ors. vs Dhappo

Disposition Appeal dismissed Court Allahabad Decided Jul 19, 1989

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/480037

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/480037
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: N.N. Mithal and ;G.D. Dubey, JJ.
Decided On: Jul 19, 1989
Case Number: F.A.F.O. No. 671 of 1989
Subject: Motor Vehicles
Disposition: Appeal dismissed

Case Summary

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

- INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES Definition clause: [Markandey Katju & H.L. Dattu, JJ] Meaning given to an expression in one Statute cannot be applied to another Statute.

Key legal issue: Motor Vehicles
Outcome / disposition: Appeal dismissed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Narendra Singh and ors.

Respondent

Dhappo

Legal References

Reported In: I(1990)ACC174; 1990ACJ625

Excerpt

- interpretation of statutes definition clause: [markandey katju & h.l. dattu, jj] meaning given to an expression in one statute cannot be applied to another statute.n.n. mithal, j.1. this appeal purports to have been filed under order 43, rule 1 (d) read with section 110d of the motor vehicles act. none of the orders annexed with the memo of appeal is the award passed by the motor accidents claims tribunal. the only orders which have been annexed are the one passed on 5.4.1988 by which the court had directed the case to proceed ex parte against the appellants. the other order is dated 13.4.1989 by which the appellants' application for setting aside the ex parte award has been dismissed. none of these orders, therefore, will be covered by section 110-d of the motor vehicles act. learned counsel submitted that the appeal lies under order 43, rule 1 (d). however, order 43 has not been made applicable in proceedings under the motor vehicles act. rule 21 of the motor accidents claims tribunals rules applicable in u.p. only makes order 9, rule 13 applicable to these proceedings. this does not include the provision of order 43, rule 1. in this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the appeal does not lie. it is accordingly dismissed.

Full Judgment

N.N. Mithal, J.

1. This appeal purports to have been filed under Order 43, Rule 1 (d) read with Section 110D of the Motor Vehicles Act. None of the orders annexed with the memo of appeal is the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The only orders which have been annexed are the one passed on 5.4.1988 by which the court had directed the case to proceed ex parte against the appellants. The other order is dated 13.4.1989 by which the appellants' application for setting aside the ex parte award has been dismissed. None of these orders, therefore, will be covered by Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act. Learned counsel submitted that the appeal lies under Order 43, Rule 1 (d). However, Order 43 has not been made applicable in proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act. Rule 21 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals Rules applicable in U.P. only makes Order 9, Rule 13 applicable to these proceedings. This does not include the provision of Order 43, Rule 1. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the appeal does not lie. It is accordingly dismissed.

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 1989 Same Parties Narendra Singh and ors. vs Dhappo Same Subject Motor Vehicles Same Judge N.N. Mithal and ;G.D. Dubey, JJ.

Motor Vehicles