LexU.P.S.R.T.C. versus KM. MAMTA & ORS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2016] 2 S.C.R. 71 U.P.S.R.T.C. v. Km. MAMTA & ORS. (Civil Appeal No.1425 of2016) FEBRUARY 12, 2016 [J. CHELAMESWAR AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.] A B Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - s. 17 3 - First appeal under - Scope of - Held: An al?peal u/s. 17 3 is in the nature of first appeal like s. 96 CPC - High Court in exercise of such jurisdiction, is C under legal obligation to decide all the issues, both on facts and law after appreciating the entire evidence - Jn the present._case, since the High Court as first Appellate court failed to perform its statutory duty, matter remanded to High Court - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - s. 96. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Or. X¥ r. 4(2) rlw. Or. XL! r. 31 - Judgment of High Court - Passed in appeal uls. 17 3 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Without giving concise statement of case, points for determination, decisions thereon and reasons - Held: Such iudgment does not satisfy requirements of Or. X¥ r. 4(2) rlw Or. XL! r. 31 and hence cannot be upheld - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - s. 173. Partly allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to High Court, the Court HELD 1.1 An appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act is essentially in the nature of first appeal alike Section 96 of CPC and, therefore, the High Court is equally under legal obligation to decide all issues arising in the case both on facts and law after appreciating the entire evidence. (Para 24] (78-D] D E F 1.2 Perusal of the impugned order of the High Court would show that the High Court neither set out the facts of the case of G the parties, nor dealt with any of the submissions urged, nor took note of the grounds raised by the appellant and nor made any attempt to appreciate the evidence in the light of the settled legal principles applicable to the issues arising in the case to find out as to whether the award of the Tribunal is legally sustainable or H 71 72 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2016] 2 S.C.R. A not and if so, how, and if not, why? As a first appellate Court, it was the duty of the High Court to have decided the appeal keeping in view the powers conferred on it by the statute. [Paras 26 and 271 [78-H; 79-A-B] B c D Santosh Hazari vs. Purushottam Tiwari (Deceased) by L.Rs. (2001) 3 SCC 179:2001 (1) SCR 948; Madhukar ~ Ors. v. Sanf<ram & Ors. (2001) 4 SCC 756: 2001 (3) SCR 138; H.K.N. Swami 1~ lrshad Basith (2005) 10 SCC 243; Jagannath " Aru/appa & Anr. (2005) 12 SCC 303; B. V Ndgesh & Anr. vs. H. V. Sreenivasa Murthy (2010) 13 SCC 530: 2010 (11) SCR 784; State Bank of India & Anr. vs. Emmsons International Ltd. & Anr. (2011) 12 SCC 174: 2011 (10) SCR 436; National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Naresh Kumar & Ors. (2000) 10 SCC 198; State of Punjab & Am: vs. Navdeep Kuur & Ors. (2004) 13 sec 680 - relied on. Kurian Chacko vs. Varkey Ouseph AIR 1969 Kerala 316 - approved. 2. The impugned judgment also does not satisfy the requirements of Order XX Rule 4 (2) read with Order XLI Rule 31 of CPC which requires that judgment shall contain a concise E statement of the case, points for determination, decisions thereon and tlfe reasons. It is for this reason, the impugned judgment of the High Court cannot be upheld. [Para 27] [79-C] 3. The case is remanded to the High Court for deciding the appeal afresh on merits, keeping in view the principle of law laid F down by this Court, on merits uninfluenced by the observations in the present judgment. [Paras 29 and 30] (79-D-E] Case Law Reference AIR 1969 Kerala 316 approved. Para 15 2001 (1.) SCR 948 relied on Para 18 G 2001 (~) SCR 138 relied on Para 19 c2005) 10 sec 243 relied on Para 20 c2005) 12 sec 303 relied on Para 21 20JO (11) SCR 784 relied on Para 22 20Jl (10) SCR 436 relied on Para 23 H c2000) 10 sec 198 relied on Para 24 c2004) 13 sec 680 relied on Para 24 U.P.S.R.T.C. v. KM. MAMTA 73 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1425 A of2016., From the Judgment and Order dated 28.05.2014 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad at Allahabad in First Appeal from Order No. 1681 of2014. Ms. Garima Prashad, Advs. for the Appellant.· Prakash Kumar Singh, Adv. for the Respondent. -The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal is filed by the defendant/appellant-Corporation against the judgment/order dated 28.05.2014 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad in First Appea
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.