Disposed

Muhammed Nowful K.S @ Shanu v. M.G.Balakrishnan

Kerala HC11 Jun 2014OP (MAC)/75/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an original petition, the petitioner sought time to produce a Panchayat Licence before being directed to refund a motor accident compensation amount. The court was satisfied with his assurance of compliance, granted two months time, and stayed the Tribunal order.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted two months to produce the licence; Tribunal order kept in abeyance.

Muhammed Nowful K.S @ Shanu Vs M.G.Balakrishnan — Kerala HC (2014) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE 2014/21ST JYAISHTA, 1936

¶5

OP (MAC).No. 75 of 2014 (O)

¶6

OPMV 1687/2009 of M.A.C.T., KOTTAYAM

¶7

PETITIONER(S) :-

¶8

MUHAMMED NOWFUL K.S @ SHANU, KALATHIL (H), PERUNNA, CHANGANASSERY KOTTAYAM.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SRI.NANDAGOPAL S.KURUP

¶10

RESPONDENT(S) :-

¶11

1. M.G.BALAKRISHNAN MYLADI, MADAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM - 685 001.

¶12

2. SREELAL, CHAMAKKA (H), KOTTOOR P.O., KAVIYOOR PATHANAMTHITTA - 685 001.

¶13

3. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., KOTTAYAM - 685 001.

¶14

R3 BY SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN, SC, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.

¶15

THIS OP (MAC) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-06-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

jvt

¶17

OP (MAC).No. 75 of 2014 (O)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :-

¶20

EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 22/5/2012 IN OP.(MV) NO.1687/2009 ON THE FILES OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBNAL, KOTTAYAM.

¶21

EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE RENT DEED DATED 16/04/2013.

¶22

EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 06/11/2013 IN I.A NO.2023/2013 IN OP(MV)1687/2009 PASSED BY THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM.

¶23

EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF THE BOARD OF SECONDARY EXAMINATION PASSED BY THE PETITIONER.

¶24

EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE MARK SHEET OF THE FINAL YEAR OF B.COM EXAMINATION ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY.

¶25

EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 21/4/2013 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER FROMT EH MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM.

¶26

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :- NIL

¶27

//TRUE COPY//

¶28

P.A. TO JUDGE

¶29

K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. -----------------------------------O.P (MACT) No.75 of 2014

¶30

Dated this the 11^th day of June 2014

¶31

J U D G M E N T

¶32

The petitioner was the claimant in O.P (MV) No.1687/2009 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam. The petitioner had filed the said claim petition seeking compensation for injuries suffered in a motor accident. As per Ext.P1 award, he was granted compensation. An amount of ₹1,50,000/- was paid to him directly and the balance amount of ₹1,26,342/- was deposited in the name of the petitioner in a Fixed Deposit Account with a nationalised bank for a period of two years. Later on, the petitioner filed a petition seeking release of the amount that was remaining in Fixed Deposit stating that he wanted to start a stationery shop. The said petition was allowed by the Tribunal. The amount was permitted to be withdrawn on condition that the petitioner executed an undertaking before the Tribunal that he would produce the Panchayat Licence for conducting the business. He has not

¶33

O.P (MACT) No.75 of 2014

¶34

-: 2 :-

¶35

complied with the said undertaking. Therefore, as per Ext.P3 order, the Tribunal has directed the petitioner to refund the amount that was released to him.

¶36

I have heard Adv.Ziyad Rahman, who appears for the Insurance Company also.

¶37

The counsel for the petitioner submits that the licence could not be produced for some technical reasons. He assures that the licence would be produced before the Tribunal in compliance with the undertaking provided, he is granted some time to produce it. Since the petitioner is ready to comply with the undertaking, I am satisfied that he should be granted some time to produce the licence.

¶38

This Writ Petition is therefore disposed of granting two months time to the petitioner to produce the licence that he had undertaken to produce before the Tribunal. Meanwhile, Ext.P3 order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam shall be kept in abeyance.

¶39

Sd/K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE.

¶40

Jvt

Muhammed Nowful K.S @ Shanu v. M.G.Balakrishnan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhammed Nowful K.S @ Shanu v. M.G.Balakrishnan

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

Sheejamol Vs the Secretary

A. Gopalakrishna Bhatt Vs the Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies (General)

Prabeena K. Vs University of Calicut

Satheesh Vs Central Govt. Labour Court, Kozhikode

Ashfaq.P. Vs the Nilishwar Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Salim.v.S Vs the Secretary