CM(M) 133/2010 Vikas Sharma v. Jagdish Prasad Ram & Anr. Page 1 Of 2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Reserve: April 28, 2010 Date of Order: May 31, 2010 + CM(M) 133/2010 % 31.05.2010 Vikas Sharma ...Petitioner Through: nemo Versus Jagdish Prasad Ram & Anr. ...Respondents Through: Mr. Pradeep Gaur and Mr. Amit Kumar Pandey, Advocates JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? 3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? JUDGMENT 1. This petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner assailing orders dated 18th November 2009 and 20th November, 2009 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) in execution of award dated 29th August, 2009 filed by the petitioner. Vide order dated 18th November 2009 the Tribunal observed that the appellate court had directed insurance company to deposit amount of Rs.22 lac with UCO Bank and inadvertently this amount was deposited with the Tribunal. Thus, the amount be returned by Nazir to AR of the insurer against receipt and on the undertaking that the same would be deposited with the concerned UCO Bank. Vide order dated 20th November 2009, the Tribunal observed that copy of the receipt of cheque of Rs.22 lac deposited by the insurer with the UCO Bank was placed on record. Since appellate Court had stayed the execution on deposit of this amount, the attachment warrants attaching the account of insurance company was recalled. CM(M) 133/2010 Vikas Sharma v. Jagdish Prasad Ram & Anr. Page 2 Of 2 2. It is not disputed by the petitioner that this Court while entertaining the appeal had directed stay of execution on deposit of award amount with UCO Bank. The Tribunal simply followed the directions and orders passed by this Court. I find no reason to entertain the present petition. The petition is hereby dismissed. May 31, 2010 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA J. rd