Vikas Sharma vs Jagdish Prasad Ram & Anr.
2010 Latest Caselaw 2857 Del

     *           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


                                                              Date of Reserve: April 28, 2010
                                                                 Date of Order: May 31, 2010
+ CM(M) 133/2010
%                                                                                    31.05.2010
      Vikas Sharma                                                          ...Petitioner
      Through: nemo

         Versus

         Jagdish Prasad Ram & Anr.                            ...Respondents
         Through: Mr. Pradeep Gaur and Mr. Amit Kumar Pandey, Advocates



         JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

1.       Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2.       To be referred to the reporter or not?

3.       Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?


         JUDGMENT

1. This petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been

preferred by the petitioner assailing orders dated 18th November 2009 and 20th

November, 2009 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) in

execution of award dated 29th August, 2009 filed by the petitioner. Vide order dated 18th

November 2009 the Tribunal observed that the appellate court had directed insurance

company to deposit amount of Rs.22 lac with UCO Bank and inadvertently this amount

was deposited with the Tribunal. Thus, the amount be returned by Nazir to AR of the

insurer against receipt and on the undertaking that the same would be deposited with the

concerned UCO Bank. Vide order dated 20th November 2009, the Tribunal observed that

copy of the receipt of cheque of Rs.22 lac deposited by the insurer with the UCO Bank

was placed on record. Since appellate Court had stayed the execution on deposit of this

amount, the attachment warrants attaching the account of insurance company was

recalled.

CM(M) 133/2010 Vikas Sharma v. Jagdish Prasad Ram & Anr. Page 1 Of 2

2. It is not disputed by the petitioner that this Court while entertaining the appeal had

directed stay of execution on deposit of award amount with UCO Bank. The Tribunal

simply followed the directions and orders passed by this Court. I find no reason to

entertain the present petition. The petition is hereby dismissed.

May 31, 2010                                                 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA J.
rd




CM(M) 133/2010   Vikas Sharma v. Jagdish Prasad Ram & Anr.                   Page 2 Of 2