Allowed

S.Rajendran v. Managing Director, Jayalalitha Transport

Kerala HC14 Jan 2013RP/881/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a review petition against a motor accident claims appeal decision. The court found the earlier judgment was passed without hearing the review petitioner because an earlier appeal against the same award was pending. The judgment was recalled to be heard collectively with the pending appeal.

What did the court decide?

Review petition allowed; Judgment in M.A.C.A.No.1030/2004 recalled; Post appeal along with M.A.C.A.No.996/2004 for hearing.

S.Rajendran Vs Managing Director, Jayalalitha… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID

¶4

MONDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY 2013/24TH POUSHA 1934

¶5

RP.No. 881 of 2009 (A) IN MACA.1030/2004

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN MACA.1030/2004 DATED 26-11-2008

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONER/1ST RESPONDENT:

¶8

S.RAJENDRAN, S/O.SUNDARESAN, LEKSHMI VILAS, T.C.7/1822, PANGODE, THIRUMALA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.SABU S.KALLARAMOOLA

¶10

SRI.GOPAKUMAR.G.

¶11

RESPONDENTS/APPELLANT & RESPONDENTS 2 TO 5:

¶12

MANAGING DIRECTOR, JAYALALITHA TRANSPORT CORPORATION, NOW KNOWN AS STATE EXPRESS TRANSPORT CORPORATION (TAMILNADU - DIV.1), CHENNAI - 02.

¶13

*2. V.MURUGAN, S/O.VADAMALAI, (DELETED) KUNNAPALAYA STREET,

¶14

PANDURITY, VALLALAR DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU.

¶15

*3. R.PALAISWAMY, RALIAMMANKOIL STREET, (DELETED) SANTRURPALAYAM, CUDDALURE -3.

¶16

V.VELUMURUGAN, S/O.VENKETESAN, PERIYPILLAYAMEDU, KEPERKUWERI P.O., CUDDALURE (TK), TAMILNADU.

¶17

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶18

RESPONDENTS NOS.2 & 3 ARE DELETED FROM PARTY ARRAY AT THE RISK OF THE PETITIONER AS PER ORDER DATED 12.12.2012 ON I.A.NO.3149/2012 IN R.P.NO.881/2009 IN M.A.C.A.NO.1030/2004.

¶19

R1 BY ADV. SRI SUBASH CYRIAC R5 BY ADV. SRI MA GEORGE

¶20

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-01-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

HARUN-UL-RASHID, J.

¶22

R.P.No.881 of 2009 in M.A.C.A.No.1030 Of 2004

¶23

Dated this the 14^th day of January, 2013.

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

The 1^st respondent is the review petitioner. The review

¶26

petition is filed seeking to review the judgment dated 26.11.2008

¶27

in M.A.C.A.No.1030/2004.

¶28

M.A.C.A.No.1030/2004 was filed by the 1^st respondent in O.P.(MV).No.912/1996 on the file of the M.A.C.T., Thiruvananthapuram. The Tribunal by judgment dated 20.6.2002partly allowed the claimant to recover a sum of Rs.95,800/- with interest @ 9% per annum. In the appeal preferred by the 1^st respondent this Court partly modified the claim. An amount of Rs.10,000/- was reduced in appeal and the interest rate was reduced to 7.5% from 9%.

¶29

The petitioner submits that the above appeal was posted for hearing on 26.11.2008. The advocate clerk omitted to note the posting date and hence there was no representation for the 1^st respondent/review petitioner. It is also pointed out that

¶30

::2::

¶31

R.P.No.881 Of 2009

¶32

challenging the very same award the review petitioner filed M.A.C.A.No.996/2004 and the same is pending, that without noticing the pendency of the appeal preferred by the claimant, M.A.C.A.No.1030/2004 was taken up for hearing and partly allowed without hearing the review petitioner.

¶33

It is a fact that the review petitioner was not heard while M.A.C.A.No.1030/2004 was heard and disposed of. The appeal filed by the review petitioner against the very same award was pending consideration at the time of disposal of M.A.C.A.No.1030/2004. In the said circumstances, this Court is of the view that the order under challenge has to be reviewed so that the appeal can be disposed of along with M.A.C.A.No.996/2004.

¶34

Accordingly, the review petition is allowed. The judgment in M.A.C.A.No.1030/2004 is recalled. Post the appeal along with M.A.C.A.No.996/2004 for hearing.

¶35

HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge.

¶36

bkn/-

S.Rajendran v. Managing Director, Jayalalitha Transport

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Rajendran v. Managing Director, Jayalalitha Transport

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd Vs Velu

D.Joseph Vs Sudeeshkumar

E.S.I.Corporation Vs Mr.Shaju K.S.

Kamalamma Vs Krishnankutty

State of Kerala Vs Kochukutty

Executive Engineer, Tc Division Vs N. Venugopalan