Jai Singh Vs. Raj Bala and Others - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1154354
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnJul-04-2014
AppellantJai Singh
RespondentRaj Bala and Others
Excerpt:
in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh fao no.3671 of 2011 (o&m) date of decision: 4th july, 2014 jai singh appellant versus raj bala and others respondents coram: hon’ble mr.justice rakesh kumar garg1 whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment?. 2. whether to be referred to the reporters or not?. 3. whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?. present: mr.shakti kaushik, advocate for the appellant. mr.rajnish malhotra, advocate for respondent no.4. rakesh kumar garg, j. (oral) this is owner’s appeal challenging the impugned award. along with this appeal, appellant filed an application i.e.cm no.13548-cii of 2011 seeking exemption from depositing the statutory amount of `25,000 required for maintainability of this appeal. the said application was rejected vide order dated 24.01.2014 and the appellant was given three weeks’ time to deposit the said amount and the appeal was ordered to be listed for hearing on 03.03.2014, on which date learned counsel for the appellant sought one more singh rattan pal 2014.07.07 17:11 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document punjab & haryana high court fao no.3671 of 2011 (o&m) 2 opportunity to comply with the aforesaid order dated 24.01.2014 and on his request the case was adjourned for 20.05.2014. however, on 20.05.2014, learned counsel representing the appellant submitted before this court that since the insurance company has already deposited the amount of compensation, therefore, the appellant would move an application for recalling of the order dated 24.01.2014 and on his submission, the case was again adjourned for today. today, mr.shakti kaushik, advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the appellant and has filed his vakalatnama. however, neither the order dated 24.01.2014 has been complied with nor any such application for recalling the aforesaid order has been filed, as submitted before this court on 20.05.2014. since the appellant has failed to comply with the order dated 24.01.2014, this appeal stands dismissed being not maintainable for non deposit of the statutory amount of `25,000. (rakesh kumar garg) judge july 4, 2014 rps singh rattan pal 2014.07.07 17:11 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document punjab & haryana high court
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.3671 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 4th July, 2014 Jai Singh Appellant Versus Raj Bala and others Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE Mr.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG1 Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment?.

2.

Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not?.

3.

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?.

Present: Mr.Shakti Kaushik, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr.Rajnish Malhotra, Advocate for respondent No.4.

RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J.

(ORAL) This is owner’s appeal challenging the impugned award.

Along with this appeal, appellant filed an application i.e.CM No.13548-CII of 2011 seeking exemption from depositing the statutory amount of `25,000 required for maintainability of this appeal.

The said application was rejected vide order dated 24.01.2014 and the appellant was given three weeks’ time to deposit the said amount and the appeal was ordered to be listed for hearing on 03.03.2014, on which date learned counsel for the appellant sought one more Singh Rattan Pal 2014.07.07 17:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court FAO No.3671 of 2011 (O&M) 2 opportunity to comply with the aforesaid order dated 24.01.2014 and on his request the case was adjourned for 20.05.2014.

However, on 20.05.2014, learned counsel representing the appellant submitted before this Court that since the Insurance Company has already deposited the amount of compensation, therefore, the appellant would move an application for recalling of the order dated 24.01.2014 and on his submission, the case was again adjourned for today.

Today, Mr.Shakti Kaushik, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the appellant and has filed his Vakalatnama.

However, neither the order dated 24.01.2014 has been complied with nor any such application for recalling the aforesaid order has been filed, as submitted before this Court on 20.05.2014.

Since the appellant has failed to comply with the order dated 24.01.2014, this appeal stands dismissed being not maintainable for non deposit of the statutory amount of `25,000.

(RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE July 4, 2014 rps Singh Rattan Pal 2014.07.07 17:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court