RAMESH SINGH AND ANR. versus CINTA DEVI AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] 2 S.C.R. 1036 · Decided: 23-02-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. AHMADI, SUJATA V. MANOHAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
RAMESH SINGH AND ANR. 
v. 
CINTA DEVI AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 23, 1996 
B 
[AM. AHMADI, CJ. AND SUJATA V. MANOHAR, J.] 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939/Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: 
Right of appeal under the old Act-Whether swvives even after its repeal 
C by the new Act-Held, the claimant would be entitled to file an appeal without 
being required to make the deposit under the proviso to S.173 of the 1988 Act. 
D 
E 
Oliental Insurance Company Ltd. Haldwani, v. Dhanram Singh and 
Others, AIR (1990) Allahabad 104 and Jaswant Rao v. Kamlabai & Anr., 
AIR (1990) MP 354, approved. 
Husain Kasim Dada v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others, [1953] SCR 
987 at 991; State of Bombay v. Supreme General Films Exchange Limited, 
[1960] 3 SCR 640 and Vithal Bhai Narang Bhai Patel v. Commissioner of 
Sales Tax, M.P. & Nagpur, AIR (1967) SC 344, relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4255 of 
1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.10.93 of the Patna High 
Court in M.A. No. 252 of 1992. 
F 
AK. Pandey for R.P. Singh for the Appellants. 
Vishnu Mehra for K.M.K. Nair for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
G 
Special leave granted. 
The short question is : does a right of appeal accrued to a claimant 
under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, hereinafter called the 'Old Act', on 
the institution of a claim application in the Motor Accident .claims 
Tribunal, notwithstanding its repeal by the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, 
H hereinafter called the 'New Act'? In other words, does the right of appeal 
1036 
l 
1 
RAMESHSINGHv. CINTADEVI. 
1037 
under the Old Act survive even after its repeal by the New Act? The brief A 
facts are that an accident took place on"27.5.1988 which gave rise to a claim 
for a compensation under the Old Act. The claim application was filed on 
23.12.1988. Thereafter the new Act came into force with effect from 
1.7.1989. The claim application which was instituted under the Old Act was 
disposed of on 29.6.1992 after the new Act came into force. That gave rise 
to a right to file an appeal. The appeal was preferred under the Old Act 
on 25.9.1992. However, the Division Bench of the High Court by the 
impugned order dismissed the appeal on the ground that the appellant·had 
not deposited the amount as required by the proviso to section 173 of the 
New Act. Section 173 of the New Act, insofar as is relevant for our 
purposes, reads as under : 
"Section 173. Appeals (1.) Subject to the provisions of sub-section 
(2), any person aggrieved by an award of a Claims Tribunal may, 
within ninety days from the date of the award, prefer an appeal to 
B 
c 
the High Court : Provided that no appeal by the person who is 
required to pay any amount in terms of such award shall be D 
entertained by the High Court unless he has deposited with it 
twenty five thousand rupees or fifty per cent of the amount so 
awarded, whichever is less, in the manner directed by the High 
Court." 
E 
Admittedly, the appellant had not deposited the amount as required by the 
said proviso. The High Court, therefore, came to the conclusion that the 
appeal was not maintainable and dismissed the same. It is against the said 
order of the High Court that the present appeal is preferred. 
We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have perused F 
the relevant provisions of the Old Act as well as the New Act bearing on 
the question whether or not the appellant was required to make the deposit 
and we may state that the repealing clause, namely sub-section ( 4) of 
section 217, preserves Section 6 of the General Clauses Act. We may at 
this stage reproduce Section 217 ( 4) of the New Act and Section 6 of the G 
General clauses act. 
"Section 217(4). The mention of particular matters in this Section 
shall not be held to prejudice or affect the general application of 
section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (1.0of1897), with regard 
to the effect of repeals." 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
1038 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1996] 2 S.C.R. 
"Section 6. Effect of repeal. Where this Act, or any (Central Act) 
or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act, repeals 
any enactment hitherto made of hereafter to be made, then, unless 
a different intention appears, the repeal shall not -
(a) revive anything not in force or existing at the time at 
which the repeal takes effect; or; 
(b) affect the previous operation of any enactmt?nt so 
repealed or anything duly done or suffered thereunder ; or 
( c) affect any right, privil

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.