Jammu & Kashmir High Court Directs Construction of Overhead Bridge or Underpass on Ring Road for Safe Passage of Villagers Minor Injuries No Bar for Framing Charges Under Section 307 IPC if Intent to Kill is Present: Supreme Court Prosecution's Case Full of Glaring Doubts:  Supreme Court Overturns Conviction in Abduction and Murder Case Allegations of Dowry Demand in FIR Found Vague and Driven by Civil Property Dispute: Supreme Court Quashes FIR and Chargesheet in Dowry-Cruelty Case Local Police Failed to Perform its Duties: SC Directs New Investigating Officer in Property Dispute Properties Acquired By Gift During Marriage Remain Separate Property Of Spouse Under French Civil Code; Husband Entitled To Half Share Only In Community Assets: Madras High Court Abuse Of Process: Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Against Closure Of Human Trafficking Complaint, Flags Lack Of Bona Fides Access To Justice Cannot Be Denied When Tribunal Is Not Functioning': Calcutta High Court Holds Writ Maintainable Under Article 226 Amid Stalled Conciliation Proceedings Violation Of Natural Justice Overrides Bar On Maintainability Under Section 18 MSMED Act: Orissa High Court Panic In A Train Does Not Mean Self-Destruction: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants ₹8 Lakh Compensation For Passenger's Death In Stampede Section 101 JJ Act | Date Of Knowledge Of Order, Not Mere Knowledge Of Disposal, Commences Limitation Period: Delhi High Court Telangana High Court Quashes Order Declaring Inam Land As Govt Property Without Determining Occupancy Rights Proviso To Section 125(3) CrPC Does Not Limit Enforcement Of Monetary Relief Orders Under Section 20 DV Act: Telangana High Court Regularization Of Deviation Within Permissible Plot Envelope Governed By Uniform Fee Schedule, Arbitrary 5X Penalty Unsustainable: J&K&L High Court Man Who Blackmailed Woman With Her Own Nude Photos To Rape Her Repeatedly Can't Escape Conviction Merely Because His Voice Sample Wasn't Taken: Delhi High Court Arbitration Clause In Sale Agreement Cannot Be Invoked If Subject Matter Involves Third-Party Title Disputes: Madhya Pradesh High Court Trial Court Errs In Dismissing Amendment Plea If New Facts Emerge From Written Statement: Punjab & Haryana High Court 'No Compensation For Own Wrong': Gujarat High Court Rules Tortfeasors & Legal Heirs Cannot Claim Motor Accident Damages Under Section 166 MV Act Allahabad High Court Pulls Up Police And Magistrates Over Illegal Remand Of Juvenile Accused Section 13(1)(ia) & (ib) Hindu Marriage Act | Spouse Seeking Divorce On Grounds Of Cruelty And Desertion Must Prove Allegations With Cogent Evidence: Telangana High Court Cannot Let Land Become Banjar: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Appointment Of Receiver Under BNSS Amidst Pending Civil Title Disputes Section 8 Arbitration Act | Executing Court Must Refer Parties To Arbitration If Dispute Falls Within Scope Of Compromise Decree: Madhya Pradesh High Court Suit For Damages Arising Out Of Tortious Injury Barred By Limitation If Not Filed Within One Year: Punjab & Haryana High Court 72-Hour Gap Not Proximate: Calcutta High Court Quashes Murder Conviction, Holds 'Last Seen' Theory Inapplicable When Time Gap Is Wide Original Owner Cannot Create Trust Over Property Already Sold; Separate Relief For Title Declaration Not Required: Madras High Court

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