Appeal seeking setting aside of a 1992 Tribunal award of Rs.1,70,000 to claimants. The court declined to decide the claim on merits given the amount involved and passage of time, and directed release of compensation if not already paid.
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.
FAO-534-1993 1 2024:PHHC:042754
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
126
FAO-534-1993 Date of Decision : 01.04.2024
VAKIL CHAND & ANR
......... APPELLANTS
Versus
TEEJAN AND ORS
..... RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present : Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for the appellants (through VC).
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)
( JAGMOHAN BANSAL ) JUDGE
01.04.2024
anju
| Whether speaking/reasoned | Yes/No |
|---|---|
| Whether Reportable | Yes/No |
Anju Goel 2024.04.01 16:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
1 issue framed by the court
Should the appeal against the 1992 compensation award be decided on merits given the amount stands deposited and time has passed?
Vakil Chand & Anr
Teejan and Ors
Jagmohan Bansal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
