Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

U.P. JAL NIGAM, LUCKNOW versus MANJU GOEL & ORS.

Decided
24 March 2009
Judges listed
ARIJIT PASAYAT (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Disposed off

Citations

Official
[2009] 4 S.C.R. 1059 · 2009 INSC 397

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

1

Leave granted.

p. 1060, margin C

2

Challenge in these appeals is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Uttranchal High Court dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant. Since the writ appeal was dismissed for non prosecution, an application for restoration was filed which was rejected by the impugned order.

p. 1060, margin D

3

It is to be noted that a Claim Petition was filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pauri Garhwal (in short the 'MACT') by respondents 1 to 5, claiming compensation in respect of an accident where one Shri Sudhakar Goel (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') lost his life on 19.3.1979. The claim made was Rs.11 lakhs. The MACT awarded Rs.9, 18,288/- and the appellant was directed to pay the same. Against the Award an appeal was preferred before the Allahabad High Court which was numbered as Appeal No.335 of 1984 before the Allahabad High Court. After reorganization of State of Uttar Pradesh, State of Uttranchal was formed. The appeal in question was transferred to the Uttranchal High Court. Being unaware of this transfer none appeared when the Uttranchal High Court took up the matter. The appeal was dismissed. Coming to know of the dismissal, an application for restoration was filed, which was dismissed by the impugned order. The stand of the appellant is that it has no liability liability of Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam in respect of the territory within the Uttranchal State was transferred to the newly created Uttranchal Water Supply and Development Nigam and therefore the appellant has no liability to discharge the Award. In any several important questions of law were involved. background it is submitted that the restoration application have been allowed.

pp. 1060–1061, margin E

4

There is no appearance on behalf of the respondents spite of service of notice.

p. 1061, margin B

5

While issuing notice this Court had indicated that matter may be remitted for disposal on merits. However, direction was given to deposit a SW)l_,of Rs.5,00,000/- with concerned MACT without prejudice to the claims involved. stated that the deposit has been made. In view of the position highlighted to justify the non-appearance when matter was taken up by the High Court, we are of the view that the matters deserve to be heard on merit. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order, direct restoration of F.A.F.O. 1984 (old number) 981 of 2001 (new number) titled UP Nivam v. Smt. Manju Goel and others.

p. 1061, margin C

6

Since the matter is pending since long, we request High Court to dispose of the matter as early as practicable after giving notice to the parties concerned.

p. 1061, margin E

7

The appeals are disposed of accordingly. K.K.T. Appeals disposed

p. 1061, margin F