SMT.JUGLESH KUMARI Vs. INFCO TOKIYO GENRAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question of maintainability of these applications under Sec. 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908["Code" for short] has arisen in view of the decision of a learned Single Judge in Shankar Lal Jaiswal v. Asha Devi and others, (2018) SCC OnLine All 2545 : (2019) 132 ALR 809. In Shankar Lal Jaiswal (supra) the learned Single Judge has held that an application under Sec. 24 of the Code to transfer a claim petition pending before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal would not lie to this Court. It has been held in the said decision that a Tribunal constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988["the 1988 Act" for short] is not a Court subordinate to the High Court, within the meaning of Sec. 24(1)(b) of the Code. No transfer application would lie to this Court for transferring a claim petition from one Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to another, constituted under the Act. It would be profitable to quote in extenso what was held in Shankar Lal Jaiswal, which is as follows :

(2.) This matter has come up before me sitting singly. Speaking for myself, I could not have agreed more both with the reasoning and the conclusions of the learned Single Judge in Shankar Lal Jaiswal. But, a difficulty is posited because, in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Court, the same question had arisen before the Full Bench in Kamla Yadav v. Smt. Sushma Devi and others, 2004 (22) LCD 40, where the Full Bench had the following questions for consideration of their Lordships :

(3.) These questions were answered by the Full Bench thus :