Niyam v2 is live — start for just ₹100 — 200 credits to try

february 2017

Supreme Court of India · 2017-02-09

M/S. PUROHIT AND COMPANY vs KHATOONBEE AND ANR .

Citation / case number
SC 2015/28123
Court
Supreme Court of India
Petitioner
M/S. PUROHIT AND COMPANY
Respondent
KHATOONBEE AND ANR .
Author
Jagdish Singh Khehar
Bench
JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR,N.V. RAMANA,D.Y. CHANDRACHUD

Judgment text excerpt

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision that there is no prescribed period of limitation for filing a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, allowing a claim petition filed 28 years post-accident. The Court clarified that while Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 provided a limitation period, the 1988 Act does not impose such a restriction. Consequently, the claim was deemed justiciable despite the delay, affirming the High Court's ruling.

M/S. PUROHIT AND COMPANY vs KHATOONBEE AND ANR . · Niyam