Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Government Can't Deny Implied Surrender After Refusing to Accept Possession: Madras HC Clarifies Scope of Section 111(f) of TP Act Custodial Interrogation Must Prevail Over Pre-Arrest Comfort in Hate Speech Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail for Provocative Remarks Against Migrants Mutation Order Without Notice Cannot Stand in Law: Orissa High Court Quashes Tahasildar's Rejection for Violating Natural Justice Cruelty Must Be Grave and Proven – Mere Allegations of Disobedience or Demand for Separate Residence Don’t Justify Divorce: Jharkhand High Court Rejects Husband’s Divorce Appeal Retaliatory Prosecution Cannot Override Liberty: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in PMLA Case Post CBI Trap of ED Officer Illegal Remand Without Production of Accused Is Not a Technical Lapse, But a Constitutional Breach: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal Findings of Fact Cannot Be Re-Appreciated in an Appeal Under Section 10F Companies Act: Madras High Court Equality Is Not A Mechanical Formula, But A Human Commitment: P&H High Court Grants Visually Impaired Mali Retrospective Promotions With Full Benefits Orissa High Court Rules Notice for No Confidence Motion Must Include Both Requisition and Resolution – Provision Held Mandatory Ashramam Built on Private Land, Managed by Family – Not a Public Religious Institution: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Endowments Notification Cruelty Must Be Proved, Not Presumed: Gujarat High Court Acquits Deceased Husband In 498A Case After 22 Years Trade Dress Protection Goes Beyond Labels: Calcutta High Court Affirms Injunction Over Coconut Oil Packaging Mimicry Mere Filing of Income Tax Returns Does Not Exonerate the Accused: Madras High Court Refuses Discharge to Wife of Public Servant in ₹2 Crore DA Case

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