Mohanlal Vs. Mangilal

Mohanlal vs Mangilal

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Jul 17, 2001

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/512376

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/512376
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Judge: S.B. Sakrikar, J.
Decided On: Jul 17, 2001
Subject: Insurance;Motor Vehicles

Case Summary

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

Key legal issue: Insurance;Motor Vehicles

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Mohanlal

Respondent

Mangilal

Legal References

Reported In: II(2002)ACC34

Excerpt

- .....with regard to the disputed bus. in reply to the notice, the applicant has filed the registration, insurance and the other papers with regard to the alleged bus. the papers filed before the executing court indicate that the applicant is not a registered owner of the bus in question. the bus is registered in the name of one ramesh chandra bhavsar, a resident of jeerapur. even in view of the aforesaid facts, the court ordered for the attachment of the said bus in execution of the award passed by the mact against the applicant. the learned counsel submitted that the order of attachment is illegal.3. considering the submissions of the learned counsel and on perusal of the impugned order as also the copies of the papers filed along with the revision petition, it emerged that the bus in question is registered in the name of one ramesh chandra bhavsar. even then, the executing court directed attachment of the said bus in execution of the award passed against the applicant. taking it for granted that the registered owner of the alleged bus is not applicant but some other person even then the applicant has no locus standi to challenge the order impugned passed by the executing court directing attachment of the said bus registered in the name of one ramesh chandra bhawasar. the alleged registered owner ramesh chandra bhavsar has not filed any objection before the executing court neither he has filed any revision against the impugned order of the executing court. as such, this revision petition filed on behalf of the applicant deserves the fate of dismissal on the ground that the applicant has no 'locus standi' to challenge the order impugned passed by the executing court.4. in the result, the revision petition is devoid of any merit and substance and the same is accordingly dismissed without any orders as to costs.

Full Judgment

ORDER

S.B. Sakrikar, J.

1. Applicant/Judgment-Debtor has directed this revision against the order dated 14.2.2000 passed by the MACT, Rajgargh District Bioara (Executing Court) thereby directing attachment and sale of the bus No. MBH-7035, in execution of the award passed in favour of N.A. 1 and 2.

2. The learned Counsel for applicant submitted that before the attachment of the said bus, a show cause notice was issued to the applicant for furnishing the details with regard to the disputed bus. In reply to the notice, the applicant has filed the registration, insurance and the other papers with regard to the alleged bus. The papers filed before the Executing Court indicate that the applicant is not a registered owner of the bus in question. The bus is registered in the name of one Ramesh Chandra Bhavsar, a resident of Jeerapur. Even in view of the aforesaid facts, the Court ordered for the attachment of the said bus in execution of the award passed by the MACT against the applicant. The learned Counsel submitted that the order of attachment is illegal.

3. Considering the submissions of the learned Counsel and on perusal of the impugned order as also the copies of the papers filed along with the revision petition, it emerged that the bus in question is registered in the name of one Ramesh Chandra Bhavsar. Even then, the Executing Court directed attachment of the said bus in execution of the award passed against the applicant. Taking it for granted that the registered owner of the alleged bus is not applicant but some other person even then the applicant has no locus standi to challenge the order impugned passed by the Executing Court directing attachment of the said bus registered in the name of one Ramesh Chandra Bhawasar. The alleged registered owner Ramesh Chandra Bhavsar has not filed any objection before the Executing Court neither he has filed any revision against the impugned order of the Executing Court. As such, this revision petition filed on behalf of the applicant deserves the fate of dismissal on the ground that the applicant has no 'locus standi' to challenge the order impugned passed by the Executing Court.

4. In the result, the revision petition is devoid of any merit and substance and the same is accordingly dismissed without any orders as to costs.

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 2001 Same Parties Mohanlal vs Mangilal Same Subject Insurance;Motor Vehicles Same Judge S.B. Sakrikar, J.

Insurance;Motor Vehicles