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. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION versus COMPOTAR

Decided
10 March 2008
Judges listed
ARIJIT PASAYAT (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Disposed off

Citations

Official
[2008] 4 S.C.R. 620 · 2008 INSC 331
Not shown
1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

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. Paragraph numbering in our copy is uncertain (interior_gap). Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

1

Leave granted.

p. 621

2

Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court directing the appellant to deposit the entire amount awarded by the Motor E Accident Claims Tribunal/Special Judge, Mathura in MACC No. 431 of2005. It was directed that the amount was to be invested and paid to the claimant-respondent No.1 in accordance with the directions of the Tribunal.

p. 621

3

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that a F detailed, frivolous and false claim was lodged. It was submitted that a bare look at the factual scenario would go to show that the claim has no foundation. The accident purportedly took place on 24.12.2000, the FIR was lodged on 31.5.2001 and in December, 2005 a Claim Petition claiming compensation under G provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short the 'Act') was filed. 4 Overlooking these facts, Tribunal awarded 'lmpensation of Rs.8, 11,351 /- alongwith interest at the rate of H A 6% from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. While admitting the appeal the High Court, according to the appellant should not have directed deposit of the entire amount and should not have permitted the claimant to be paid the amount of deposit.

pp. 621–622

5

Notice has not yet been issued in this matter but we feel that the impugned order of the High Court is practically unreasoned and no reason has been indicated as to why the High Court felt that the amount was to be paid to the claimant on deposit. Therefore, we direct the High Court to re consider the matter and pass fresh order.

p. 622

6

We have passed this order to avoid unnecessary delay and inconvenience to the parties.

p. 622, margin C

7

The appeal is accordingly disposed of. 8.8.8. Appeal disposed of.

p. 622, margin C