Disposed

Mohamed Kutty P. v. Deputy Tahsildar (Rr), Chavakkad

Kerala HC19 Jan 2016OP (MAC)/7/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In W.P. (C) No. 5898 of 2016, the Kerala High Court directed the respondent to consider the petitioner's application for replacement of his vehicle (Ex.P3) and issue notice within two weeks, noting no objection to providing an older replacement vehicle.

What did the court decide?

Directing the respondent to consider Ext.P3 (application for vehicle replacement) with notice to the petitioner within two weeks.

Mohamed Kutty P. Vs Deputy Tahsildar (Rr), Chavakkad — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/29TH POUSHA, 1937

¶5

OP (MAC).No. 7 of 2016 (O)

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OPMV 3236/2002 OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR DATED 16-03-2012

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

MOHAMED KUTTY P. AGED 58 YEARS S/O. ABOOBACKER, PARAYAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, PUNNAYURKKULAM THRISSUR-680 561.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.C.HARIKUMAR SRI.RENJITH RAJAPPAN SMT.SANU S MALAKEEL

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), TALUK OFFICE, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR-680 506.

¶12

VILLAGE OFFICER VILLAGE OFFICE, PUNNAYURKULAM VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD THRISSUR-680 561.

¶13

M/S. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. ANUGRAHA BUILDING, VADAKKANCHERY ROAD KUNNAMKULAM-680 503.

¶14

R1-2 BY ADV.K.A.SANJEETHA, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER R 3 BY SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN

¶15

THIS OP (MAC) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

OP (MAC).No. 7 of 2016 (O) ---------------------------

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS -------------------------------------

¶19

P1 : A COPY OF THE AWARD OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR DTD.16.3.2012 IN OP(MV)NO.3236 OF 2002. P2 : A COPY OF THE DRIVING LICENSE NO.46/2415/2000 OF THE PETITIONER. P3 : A COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER UNDER SEC.7 OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY ACT, DTD.17.12.2015. P4 : A COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER UNDER SEC.34 OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY ACT, DTD.17.12.2015.

¶20

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS --------------------------------------NIL TRUE COPY

¶21

SKS P.A TO JUDGE

¶22

V.CHITAMBARESH, J.

¶23

¶24

Dated this the 19^th day of February, 2016

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

The petitioner confines his relief to an early consideration of

¶27

Ext.P3 application for replacement of the vehicle. The vehicle offered for replacement is older than the vehicle now put in to operation. There cannot be any objection to this course as held in Ext.P5 judgment.

¶28

I direct the respondent to consider Ext.P3 application

¶29

with notice to the petitioner within two weeks.

¶30

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶31

V.CHITAMBARESH, JUDGE

¶32

sks

Mohamed Kutty P. v. Deputy Tahsildar (Rr), Chavakkad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohamed Kutty P. v. Deputy Tahsildar (Rr), Chavakkad

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

Mes Aimat Vs M.R.Unni

P.P.Dinesan Vs the Regional Transport Authority

Fasal Rahman Vs the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority

C.P.Reghunath Vs Smt. C.Remani

Jayasree v. Vs Biju Prabhakaran

Muhammed Yusuf.K.H. Vs Antony Chacko