- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Decided
- 1 December 2017
- Bench
- Ranjan Gogoi, R. Banumathi
- Case no.
- Civil Appeal No. 9694 of2013
Headnote
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - s.163A - Clarification given with respect to decision dated 24.11.2017 reported in {2017] II S.C.R. 130.
Headnote as published in the Digital Supreme Court Reports by the Supreme Court of India. Paragraph references point to the judgment below.
Judgment
ORDER
Paragraph. I I of the Judgment dated 24.11.2017 passed by this Court in Civil Appeal No. 9694 of2013 reads as follows:-
"11. As the final disposal of the appeal may take some time,we are of the view that 50% of the compensation that is presently lying in deposit in the Registry in terms of the Order dated 24.02.2012 should be released to the claimant on due identification."
Upon a mention being made by the learned counsel for the respondent(s), the said paragraph will now be read to mean that the . amount lying in deposit in the trial Court be released to the claimant(s) on due identification.
Nidhi Jain Clarification given with respect to ealier decision.
Case details
Arising from
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 9694 of2013.
From the Judgment and Order dated I 0.10.2011 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in MAC Appeal No. 900/2011.
Appearances
Amit Kumar Singh, Mrs. E. Enatoli Serna (for Mis. Law Associates), Ad vs. for the Appellant.
Ajay Kumartalesara,Amit Singh Chauhan, Ms. Nidhi. Vipin Nair, P. B. Suresh, Abbay Pratap Singh, Advs. for the Respondents.
Source: Supreme Court of India, Digital Supreme Court Reports, via the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open dataset (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.