The appellant appealed an order/award under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The single judge held that disputed questions of fact require detailed enquiry not contemplated at this stage. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
The appeal was dismissed; all points kept open.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1 fa 2189.12
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2189 OF 2012
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. .. Appellant
Versus
Smita Wd/o Ravindra Fursule and others .. Respondents
Shri S. G. Chapalgaonkar, Advocate for the Appellant.
CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 10TH DECEMBER, 2012.
PER COURT :
2 fa 2189.12
appeal. The first appeal accordingly disposed of. All points are
kept open.
[ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ]
bsb/Dec. 12
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an appeal under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which involves disputed questions of fact, can be entertained by this court.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Smita Wd/o Ravindra Fursule and others
S. V. Gangapurwala
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
