Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Reported in : II(1989)ACC64
M.A. Shah, J.1. Heard on the question of admission.2. This is a well-settled law that an appeal is a statutory right, which cannot be granted to any aggrieved party unless there is a specific provision under the statute for filling an appeal. The appellant herein is aggrieved against the order passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jammu on October 17, 1986 granting interim relief to the respondents-the survivors of the deceased Ram Lal under Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short hereinafter called the Act). Any order passed under this Section is not appealable under Section 110-D of the Act.3. Section 92-A of the Act is a piece of beneficial legislation, which requires a liberal interpretation meant for interim relief on no fault liability to the survivors of the deceased, who dies in an accident caused by Motor Vehicles. The object of the section cannot be defeated on hyper technicalities.4. In the instant case since the interim relief is granted in favour of the resp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Reported in : [1990]68CompCas635(NULL)
1. Heard on the question of admission. 2. This is a well-settled law that an appeal is a statutory right which cannot be granted to any aggrieved party unless there is a specific provision under the statute for filing an appeal. The appellant herein is aggrieved against the order passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jamrnu, on October 17, 1986, granting interim relief to the respondents, the survivors of the deceased, Ram Lal, under Section 92A of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short, hereinafter called 'the Act'). Any order passed under this section is not appealable under Section 110D of the Act. 3. Section 92A of the Act is a piece of beneficial legislation which requires a liberal interpretation meant for interim relief of 'no fault' liability to the survivors of the deceased who dies in an accident caused by motor vehicles. The object of the section cannot be defeated on hypertechnicalitics. 4. In the instant case, since the interim relief is granted in favour of the respon...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Reported in : AIR1988J& K39
ORDERR.P. Sethi, J. 1. Besides passing a decree for the restitution of conjugal rights the District Judge, Kathua directed that the respondent-wife would be entitled to receive the articles claimed by her or in the alternative a sum of Rs. 20,000/- from the petitioner-husband The decree for restitution of conjugal rights in terms of section 9 and direction for the recovery of articles or payment of the amount in terms of Section 33 of the Hindu Marriage Act was passed against the petitioner-husband ex parte on May 25, 1984. The respondent-wife filed an application for the execution of the decree of the trial court on January 22, 1986 and prayed for the recovery of the amount objected to the execution of the decree on the amount decreed in her favour. The petitioner-husband objected to the execution of the decree on the ground that the same was a nullity and had not been passed under the provisions of law. It was further submitted that no directions under Section 33 of the Hindu Marriag...
Tag this Judgment!