Dismissed

Satya Thakur and Anr. v. Gajanand Singh and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC10 Sept 2014CR/83/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed the revision petition under Section 115 CPC challenging the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's award. Finding no illegality and noting the need for funds for construction, the court held the revision without substance and dismissed it.

What did the court decide?

Revision dismissed at the admission stage itself as it was held to be without substance.

Satya Thakur and Anr. Vs Gajanand Singh and Ors. — Execution and Attachment | Chhattisgarh HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶2

Civil Revision No ......^{g 3} . . . / 2O 14

¶3

APPEELANTS 1 cw (CLAIMANTS)

¶4

1 . Satya Thakur W/ o Late Shri Raju cw Singh Thakur, aged about 28 years,

¶5

'Singh Virendra S/o Late Raju Singh Thakur, aged about 11 months, through minorwlegal guardian Smt Satya Thakur,

¶6

Both are resident of Village Ghuthalik Police Station Mungeli, Tahsil Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.)

/ a[

VERSUS

RESPONDENTS :

Gajanand Singh So/ Kapil Singh, aged about 30 years, R/o Village Amalidih, Police station Lalpur, Tahsil & District Mungeli (C.G.) 2) M/ s Raimbo Travels Anurag^Shukla, R/o Colony Ravi Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) r 3) The ”LOriental Insurance war-m 5m: Company, Limited yaw—w 4) Smt Ramful W/o Balbhadra^Singh, aged about. . .. Years, village Ghuthali, Police Station Mungeli, Tahsil Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.)

¶11

¶12

CIVIL^{REVISIONUNDERSEQTION115QFTHECODEQF} CIVIL^PROCEDURE

¶13

r /

¶14

¶15

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR (Single^Bench: Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J)

¶16

Civil Revision No.83/2014

¶17

(Revision^{underSecfion115ofC.P.C.)}

¶18

Appellan‘l’s (Claiman1's)

¶19

,Sa‘ryq^Thakur 2. Virendm Singh

¶20

¶21

Respondents

¶22

Gajanand Singh 2. M/s Raimbo Travels Anur'ag Shukla . The Orien‘ral Insurance^Company Lfd. 4. Sm’r. Romful

¶23

' .

¶24

Presen’r:

¶25

Mr. GP. Kurr'e,^{AdvocofeforTheappellon1‘s.} Responden’rs not^no?iced.

¶26

ORDER

¶27

(10.9.2014)

¶28

‘rhe

¶29

1. By This revision the^{opplicon’rhaschollengedfhe} ‘Iegaliiy^& propriefy^of order dafed 16.5.2014 ~possed by The AddiTionoI MoTor AccidenT Claims

¶30

‘ Tribunal, Mungeli^{inClaimCaseNo.108/2011.}

¶31

The maTTer^is lisTed for^{ordersondefaulT.}

¶32

Perused The^{impugnedorder.}

¶33

In The lighT of evidence^{ofsubsTanTiveconsTrucTionandThereafTerneedof} money for consTrucTion of house, I do noT find any illegaliTy in The order impugned.

¶34

is liable To be and is

¶35

1. ConsequenTly,^{TherevisionhasnosubsTance,Thesame} hereBy’dismissed^{aTTheadmissionsTageiTself.} :1 Sd/-

¶36

:1 Sd/"' T.P.^Sharma ‘ Judge

Satya Thakur and Anr. v. Gajanand Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satya Thakur and Anr. v. Gajanand Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ved Prakash Sharma Vs Asha Devi and Others

Batai and Anr. Vs Muthu Ram and Ors.

Kanhaiyalal Vs Ghanshyam andORS.

Gurubaksh Singh Saini Vs Kuldeep Singh And Anr.

Chillu Rathore Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Anr.

Chillu Rathore Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Anr.