At the Stage of Framing Charge, Presumption Suffices; Suicide Note and Grave Suspicion Enough: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Charge Under Section 306 IPC 173 CrPC | Framing of Charge Marks End of Investigation—Complainant Cannot Reopen Probe Merely by Citing Police Lapses: Bombay High Court Recovery Alone Cannot Prove Guilt: Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Photos, Videos Must Go: Supreme Court Binds Warring Spouses to Clean Up Social Media in Matrimonial Settlement Standard for Bail Under Section 319 CrPC Is Higher Than Framing of Charge, But Short of Conviction: Supreme Court Grants Bail to Accused Summoned Mid-Trial State Cannot Arbitrarily Deny Subsidies to 'New Industrial Units' by Retrospectively Applying Expansion Caps: Supreme Court Companies Act | Offence Under Section 448 Is Covered Under Section 447: Supreme Court Bars Private Complaint Without SFIO Nod “See-To-It” Obligation Is Not A Guarantee Under Indian Law: Supreme Court Clarifies Scope Of Section 126 ICA In IBC Disputes Mere Employment of Litigant’s Relatives in Police or Court Doesn't Prove Judicial Bias: Supreme Court Sets Aside Transfer of Criminal Case Reserved Candidate Availing Relaxed Standards in Prelims Cannot Migrate to General Quota for Cadre Allocation: Supreme Court Mere Vesting Does Not Mean Possession: Supreme Court Rules ULC Proceedings Abated For Failure To Serve Mandatory Notice To Actual Occupants Contempt of Courts Act | Natural Justice in Administrative Action: Supreme Court Directs West Bengal Govt to Re-Adjudicate Teachers' Arrears Claims Live-In Relationship with Married Man Not a ‘Relationship in the Nature of Marriage’ Under Domestic Violence Act: Bombay High Court Applies Supreme Court Guidelines Income Tax Act | Substitution of Shares held as Stock-in-Trade upon Amalgamation constitutes Taxable Business Income if Commercially Realisable: Supreme Court Judges Cannot Enact Their Own Protocols During Bail Hearings: Supreme Court Sets Aside Sweeping Age Determination Directions In POCSO If There Is Knowledge That Injury Is Likely To Cause Death, But No Intention Falls Under Section 304 Part II:  Supreme Court High Court Ignored POCSO’s Statutory Rigour, Committed Grave Error in Granting Bail: Supreme Court Cancels Bail of Gang-Rape Accused Section 22 HSA | Co-Heirs Have Statutory Right of Pre-Emption Even in Urban Property: Punjab & Haryana High Court 138 NI Act | Issuance of Separate Cheques Gives Rise to Independent Causes of Action, Even if Drawn for Same Underlying Transaction: Supreme 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