Allowed¶21

Bisakha Pandit v. Madhai Pandit

Jharkhand HC13 Sept 2024C.M.P./741/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Statutory deposit withdrawal; C.M.P. No.741 of 2024; M.A. No.319 of 2016; MACT Jamtara; Claim Case No.10 of 2013; judgment dated 11.05.2016; Lok Adalat compromise; DLSA Jamtara; Execution Case No.2 of 2017; Rs.25,000 statutory deposit; Rs.1,50,000 lump-sum settlement; Registrar General transmission; motor accident claim; vehicle owner appellants; Ananda Sen, J.; High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi; decided 13.09.2024.

What did the court decide?

Withdrawal and disbursement of the statutory deposit of Rs.25,000/- (M.A. No.319 of 2016) in favour of the petitioner; the amount lying with the Registrar General to be transmitted to the Court of the Additional District Judge-I-cum-Presiding Officer, MACT, Jamtara in Execution Case No.2 of 2017 for collection after proper verification of identity. ¶21

Bisakha Pandit Vs Madhai Pandit — Jharkhand HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner (claimant) is entitled to withdraw the statutory deposit of Rs.25,000/- made by the appellants in Misc. Appeal No.319 of 2016.

¶12

Court's answer

The statutory deposit of Rs.25,000/- made by the vehicle owner in M.A. No.319 of 2016 is to be disbursed to the claimant, as the joint compromise petition shows the agreed lump sum includes that deposit.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

The Civil Misc. Petition is allowed and the statutory amount deposited in M.A. No.319 of 2016 is to be disbursed to the petitioner after proper verification of identity.

¶21

Key takeaways

The amount lying with the Registrar General in M.A. No.319 of 2016 is to be transmitted to the Court of the Additional District Judge-I-cum-Presiding Officer, MACT, Jamtara in Execution Case No.2 of 2017, from where the petitioner will collect it after proper verification.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Jharkhand (Ananda Sen, J.) allowed C.M.P. No.741 of 2024 filed by claimant Bisakha Pandit seeking withdrawal of the statutory deposit of Rs.25,000/- made by the vehicle-owner appellants (Madhai Pandit and Butan Pandit) at the time of filing Misc. Appeal No.319 of 2016, which had challenged the judgment dated 11.05.2016 of the District Judge-I-cum-Presiding Officer, MACT, Jamtara in Claim Case No.10 of 2013. The parties had since compromised before a Lok Adalat organized by DLSA, Jamtara in Execution Case No.2 of 2017 for a lump sum of Rs.1,50,000/-, which the joint compromise petition recorded as inclusive of the statutory deposit lying before the Court. Holding that the deposit ought to be disbursed to the claimant, and noting that counsel for the opposite parties raised no objection, the Court allowed the petition and directed that the amount lying with the Registrar General be transmitted to the Court of the Additional District Judge-I-cum-Presiding Officer, MACT, Jamtara in Execution Case No.2 of 2017, for collection by the petitioner after proper verification of identity.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No.741 of 2024

¶2

Bisakha Pandit, W/o Prema Nand Pandit, R/o Village Khijuria, T.K. Gram, Fatehpur, P.O. & P.S. Fatehpur, District Jamtara.

¶3

… … Petitioner.

¶4

Versus

¶5

1. Madhai Pandit, S/o Sri Sudarshan Pandit, R/o Village Khijuria, T.K. Gram Fatehpur, P.O. & P.S. Fatehpur, District Jamtara.

¶6

2. Butan Pandit, S/o Kisto Pandit, R/o Village Khijuria, T.K. Gram, Fatehpur, P.O. & P.S. Fatehpur, District Jamtara

¶7

… … Opposite Parties.

¶8

CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

¶9

-----

¶10

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashutosh Prasad Joshi. For the O.P. : Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary, Advocate -----

¶11

04/ 13.09.2024

¶12

This Civil Misc. Petition has been filed to allow the petitioner to withdraw the statutory deposit which was deposited by the appellants of Misc. Appeal being M.A. No.319 of 2016 namely Madhai Pandit and Butan Pandit. The Misc. Appeal being M.A. No.319 of 2016 was filed challenging the judgment dated 11.05.2016 passed by District Judge-I-cumPresiding Officer, MACT, Jamtara, in Claim Case No.10 of 2013. 2. The appellants were the owner of the vehicle. Since they are the owner and had filed the appeal, they have deposited the statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- at the time of filing of this appeal.

¶13

3. The parties i.e. the petitioner herein and the owner of the vehicle arrived at a comprise before the Lok Adalat organized by DLSA, Jamtara in Execution Case No.2 of 2017, and it was decided that Rs.1,50,000/- will be paid to the petitioner.

¶14

4. Further, in the joint compromise petition, in para3, it has been mentioned as follows:-

¶15

“3. That Judgement Debtor Madhai Pandit appeared before this learned Tribunal and given proposal to compromise the case with claimant on lum sum amount of Rs.1,50,000/= and for which claimant/Judgment Debtor is agreed to accept the

¶16

¶17

same – including statutory amount of Rs.25,000/=which is lying before Hon’ble Court.”

¶18

5. From the aforesaid pleadings, it is clear that the amount of Rs.25,000/- which is deposited by the owner of the vehicle before this Court as statutory deposit should be disbursed to the claimant.

¶19

6. Learned counsel representing the respondent Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary, has got no objection.

¶20

7. In view of the above, this Civil Misc. Petition stands allowed .

¶21

8. The statutory amount deposited in M.A. No.319 of 2016 be disbursed in favour of this petitioner after proper verification of identity.

¶22

9. The said amount which is lying with the Registrar General in M.A. No.319 of 2016 be transmitted to the Court of Additional District Judge-I-cum-Presiding Officer, MACT, Jamtara, in Execution Case No.2 of 2017 from where the petitioner will collect the amount after proper verification.

¶23

(ANANDA SEN, J.)

¶24

Prashant .Cp-2

¶25

Bisakha Pandit v. Madhai Pandit

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bisakha Pandit v. Madhai Pandit

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhagwan Ram Vs the State of Jharkhand

Balvinder Singh Vs Shri P M Prasad Chairman Cum Managing Director Coal India Ltd.

Jai Ram Jha Vs the State of Jharkhand

Divisional Manager National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Surendra Murmu

MD Sharif Alam Vs the State of Jharkhand

Pushkar Singh Munda Vs the State of Jharkhand