DELHI TRANSPORT UNDERTAKING Vs. LALITA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether cross-objections are maintainable in a case where an appeal has been preferred under an Act which does not speifically provide for the filing of cross-objetion" is the main question which has arisen for decision in the two appeals-F.A.O. No. 239-D of 1964 and F.A.O. No. 37 of 1971, which are being decided by this. judgement.

(2.) The facts relating to F.A.O. No. 239-D of 1964 in brief are that Kumari Lalita was run over by a D.T.U. bus on 6-12-1961 and received serious injuries. According to the doctors, she was permanently dissabled. She filed a claim for Rs. 1,00,000 under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act against the Delhi Transport Undertaking. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 12,000.00 to her. The Delhi Transport Undertaking filed the present appeal against the award. Kumari Lalita filed cross-objections and asked for enhanacement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. During the course of arguments, Mr. R. L. Tandon, learned counsel for the appellant, raised and contention that no cross-objections were maintainable. His submission was that the award of the Tribunal did not amount to a decree and the provisions of Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure had not been specifically made applicable and so no cross-objections could be preferred. The award could not be treated as an order since it did not fall under the definition given in Section 2 (14) of the Code of Civil Procedure. When this matter came up before one of us (v. D. Misra, J.), it was noticed that there 'was a conflict of decisions and it was decided to refer the following question for the decision of a larger Bench :-

(3.) In F.A.O. No. 37 of 1971 M/s. Banwari Lal and Sons (Pvt.) Ltd., filed an appeal against the award of the arbitrator under Sections 8 of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act. 1952. The Union of India, who is the first respondent in this appeal, filed cross-objections. The appellant objected to the maintainability of the cross-objections on the ground that the Act did not provide for the filing of the same. It was also contended that the principle underlying under Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure would not enable the respondent to file cross-objections.When the matter came up before one of us (M.R.A. Ansari, J.), it was noticed that there was a conflict of decisions and it was decided to refer the matter to a larger Bench.