U.P. JAL NIGAM, LUCKNOW versus MANJU GOEL & ORS.

Citation: [2009] 4 S.C.R. 1059 · Decided: 24-03-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 4 S.C.R. 1059 
......___ 
A 
' 
U.P. JAL NIGAM, LUCKNOW 
v. 
MANJU GOEL & ORS. 
Civil Appeal Nos. 1821-1822 of 2009 
MARCH 24, 2009 
B 
[DR. ARIJ.IT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, 
._ 
JJ.] 
~ 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - 0. 9 - Dismissal of 
appeal by Government Department for non-prosecution - c 
Reason for non-appearance stated to be not being aware of 
transfer of the appeal to new High Court created after re-
organisation of State- The Department also denying its liability 
to discharge the award in view of transfer of liability to the 
/ ' 
Department concerned of the new State - Held : Since the 
reason for non-appearance was justified and the case involved D 
important questions of Jaw, appeal liable to be restored. 
Award passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, 
against a State Government Department, was challenged 
in appeal. The appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution. E 
Application for restoration of the order was rejected. 
~ 
Hence the present appeals. 
Appellant contended that it was not able to appear 
in the matter because the case was transferred to the High 
Court of new State created after re-organization of the F 
erstwhile State. Appellant has also denied its liability to 
discharge the award as the liability for the same shifted 
to the Department concerned, of the newly created State. 
1 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
G 
HELD: In view of the factual position highlighted to 
justify the non-appearance, when the matter was taken 
. up by the High Court; and since several important 
questions of law were involved, the matters deserve to 
1059 
H 
1060 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 4 S.C.R. 
A 
,,.._ 
be heard on merit. Therefore, restoration of the appeal is 
t 
directed. [Paras 3 and 5) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 
1821-1822 of 2009 
B 
From the Judgement and Order dated 06.07.2005 of the 
High Court of Uttaranchal at Nainital in Application No. 3650 of 
2005 and Application No. 3651 of 2005 in Appeal From Order 
,._ 
No. 981 of 2001. 
~ 
c 
Pradeep Misra, for the Appellants. 
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 
1. Leave granted. 
D 
2. Challenge in these appeals is to the order passed by a 
Division Bench of the Uttranchal High Court dismissing the 
appeal filed by the appellant. Since the writ appeal was 
dismissed for non prosecution, an application for restoration 
was filed which was rejected by the impugned order. 
E 
3. It is to be noted that a Claim Petition was filed before 
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pauri Garhwal (in short the 
~ 
'MACT') by respondents 1 to 5, claiming compensation in 
respect of an accident where one Shri Sudhakar Goel 
F 
(hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') lost his life on 
19.3.1979. The claim made was Rs.11 lakhs. The MACT 
awarded Rs.9, 18,288/- and the appellant was directed to pay 
the same. Against the Award an appeal was preferred before 
the Allahabad High Court which was numbered as Appeal No.335 
of 1984 before the Allahabad High Court. After reorganization 
' 
.,..._
G of State of Uttar Pradesh, State of Uttranchal was formed. The 
appeal in question was transferred to the Uttranchal High Court. 
Being unaware of this transfer none appeared when the 
Uttranchal High Court took up the matter. The appeal was 
H 
dismissed. Coming to know of the dismissal, an application for 
restoration was filed, which was dismissed by the impugned 
4 
---
f 
+ 
UP. JAL NIGAM, LUCKNOW V. MANJU GOEL & ORS. 
1061 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] 
order. The stand of the appellant is that it has no liability as the 
liability of Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam in respect of the territory 
within the Uttranchal State was transferred to the newly created 
Uttranchal Water Supply and Development Nigam and therefore 
the appellant has no liability to discharge the Award. In any event 
several important questions of law were involved. In the 
background it is submitted that the restoration application should 
have been allowed. 
4. There is no appearance on behalf of the respondents in 
spite of service of notice. 
5. While issuing notice this Court had indicated that the 
matter may be remitted for disposal on merits. However, 
direction was given to deposit a SW)l_,of Rs.5,00,000/- with the 
concerned MACT without prejudice to the claims involved. It is 
stated that the deposit has been made. In view of the factual 
position highlighted to justify the non-appearance when the 
matter was taken up b
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.