AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Chandrakantaraj Urs, J.—There is force in the memo filed on behalf of the respondents. However, Mr. Suryanarayana Rao, learned counsel for the appellant, relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Garikapatti Veeraya Vs. N. Subbiah Choudhury, , wherein the Supreme Court by a majority decision laid down certain tests in regard to the continuity and subsistence of right of appeal having regard to the nature of the proceedings instituted as a suit. All appeals after judgment and decree being continuation of the proceedings, the Supreme Court held that the law that is applicable on the date of the suit is the law that will govern all subsequent appeals. But, however, there may be an exception and that exception is to be found in clause (v) of para 23 of the judgment cited above. The exception is that such right of appeal may be interfered with or curtailed by a subsequent enactment expressly or by implication. Undoubtedly, the proceedings were before the Accidents Claims Tribunal under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, but the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, expressly provided that appeals against the judgment of the Accidents Claims Tribunal by those who had suffered the decree may so prosecute only on deposit of certain sum of money as stated in the law. Therefore, by necessary implication, the right of appeal is controlled by a subsequent enactment and that control cannot be said to be inoperative in respect of the parties to the proceedings before the Tribunal when the proceedings had commenced earlier than the commencement of the new Act.
We are of the opinion that the citation from the Bar is not helpful to the case of the appellant-insurer. Under such circumstances, the appellant is directed to deposit Rs. 25,000 or 50 per cent. of the amount awarded within 14 days from today failing which, the office will be directed not to entertain the appeal.
In regard to deposit etc., needful in two weeks.