Non-Production Of Case Property And Missing Link Evidence In Seizure Cases Vitiates Prosecution: Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees Compensation Act | Death Due To Cardiac Arrest During Employment Is An 'Accident' Arising Out Of Stress And Strain Of Duty: J&K High Court Transfer Of Proceedings | Courts Must Issue Fresh Notice To Parties Even If They Had Appeared Before The Transferor Court: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Award Section 80P(4) IT Act Does Not Deny Deduction To Regional Rural Banks As They Retain The 'Deemed Co-operative Society' Status Under Section 22 RRB Act: Madras High Court Property Purchased In Name Of Child For Family Benefit Is Not A 'Benami Transaction' Under Section 2(9) Of The 1988 Act: Madhya Pradesh High Court Person Without Caveatable Interest Cannot Challenge Will Or Seek Revocation Of Probate: Madras High Court Divorce | Cruelty Must Be Assessed By Cumulative Effect Of Matrimonial Conduct Rather Than Isolated Incidents: Orissa High Court Merely Labeling Insurance Policy As Comprehensive Does Not Create Unlimited Liability: MP High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Limitation Bar Is Apparent From Face Of Pleadings: Patna High Court Limitation Act | 'Sufficient Cause' Cannot Be Used To Revive Stale Or Dead Claims By State: Orissa High Court Quashes Order Condoning 53-Year Delay Employee Cannot Remain Dormant Like Rip Van Winkle & Awaken At Convenience: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Stale Service Plea With ₹25K Cost Section 29 NDPS Act | Mere Allegation Of 'Cooperation' Without Specific Overt Acts Cannot Sustain Charge Of Conspiracy: Rajasthan High Court Forest Land Status Does Not Extinguish Private Civil Title: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Decree For Possession Once Admitted In Evidence, Document Cannot Be De-Marked On Grounds Of Insufficiency Of Stamp Duty: Telangana High Court Section 190 BNSS | Mere Presence In Unlawful Assembly With Active Intent Renders Member Vicariously Liable For Homicidal Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Contributory Negligence Under Motor Vehicles Act Cannot Be Inferred Without Cogent Evidence: Telangana High Court Enhances Compensation Motor Vehicles Act | Section 164 Compensation Of Rs. 5 Lakhs Applicable Even To Pending Claims Arising Prior To 2019 Amendment: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consumer Protection Act | Builder Liable To Pay Interest For Delayed Possession Despite Force Majeure Plea If Agreement Executed Post-Outbreak: State Commission

Upholds Ex Parte Composite Award - No Sufficient Cause: P&H HC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, presided over by HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KARAMJIT SINGH, upheld an ex parte composite award, highlighting the absence of sufficient cause for setting it aside. The decision came in response to appeals filed by Tasvir Sharma, who sought to challenge the award under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The case revolved around a motor vehicle accident that occurred on February 24, 2006, resulting in injuries to Krishan Kumar and Parven. They filed separate claims against Sunil (the driver), Tasvir Sharma (the owner), and the insurer of the offending vehicle. Both Tasvir Sharma (owner) and Sunil (driver) were proceeded against ex parte in the claim petitions.

Tasvir Sharma later filed applications under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, contending that he was never served with the summons and that his proper address was not provided in the claim petitions. He claimed to have learned of the ex parte award only on July 10, 2009, when the court’s process server served warrants of attachment related to his truck.

However, the Court, after considering the submissions from both sides, found no merit in the appeals. The judgment emphasized the requirements of Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, which allows interference by the court to set aside an ex parte award or decree only under specific conditions. In this case, the appellant failed to establish that summons were not duly served upon him or that there was a sufficient cause preventing his appearance when the suit was called for hearing.

The Court observed, “There is no patent illegality or error in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal.” It concluded that there was no reason to disagree with the findings of the Tribunal and, consequently, dismissed both appeals as devoid of merits.

 

 Date of Decision: November 21, 2023

Tasvir Sharma VS Krishan Kumar and others

Latest Legal News