Disposed

G.Muruganandam v. Managing Director

Madras HC3 Apr 2018CMP(MD)/9431/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition challenged a rejection of condonation of delay by the High Court Judicial Registrar in a matter preferring an appeal against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award. Condonation was permitted conditional on waiver of interest, and this limited order permits the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Permission to condone delay of 1337 days granted on condition that petitioner shall not claim interest for the delayed period in the present appeal.

G.Muruganandam Vs Managing Director — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Civil Appellate Jurisdiction )

¶2

Tuesday, the Third day of April Two Thousand Eighteen

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

The Hon`ble Mrs.Justice J.NISHA BANU

¶5

CMP(MD) No.9431 of 2017 IN CMA(MD) No.SR16569 of 2015

¶6

G.MURUGANANDAM ... PETITIONER/APPELLANT

¶7

¶8

1 MANAGING DIRECTOR THE TAMILNADU TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD. MADURAI.

¶9

2 THE GENERAL MANAGER M/S. FAST TRACK PRIVATE LTD., 13, 3RD STREET,TRUSTPURAM, KODAMPAKKAM, CHENNAI-600 024.

¶10

3 THE DIVISION MANAGER

¶11

THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY, 70, N.S.C.BOSE ROAD, 3RD FLOOR,

¶12

SOWCARPET, CHENNAI. ... RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶13

Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the affidavit filed therewith the High Court will be pleased to condone the delay of 1337 days in preferring the above appeal.

¶14

PRAYER IN CMA(MD) No.SR16569 of 2015:

¶15

To set aside the award dated 10.05.2011 passed by the I Additional District Court cum Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thanjavur in M.C.O.P.No.177 of 2009 so far as it relates to the disability of the appellant and quantum of loss of income and to fix Rs.10,00,000/- towards loss of income in addition to the amount already fixed.

¶16

ORDER : This petition coming on for orders upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of M/S.P.SESUBALAN RAJA, Advocate for the petitioner and of MR.J.S.MURALI, Advocate for the Respondent-3 the court made the following order:-

¶17

This Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed to condone the delay of 1337 days in preferring the above appeal.

¶18

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. When the matter came up for hearing today, the learned Counsel appearing for the third respondent would submit that the

¶19

third respondent would submit that the third respondent is not having any serious objections in condoning the delay, on condigion that the petitioner/appellant shall not claim interest for the delayed period in the event of enhancement by this Court, which is also agreed by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner.

¶20

In Such a view of the matter, the delay is condoned and this petition is accordingly ordered.

¶21

sd/03/04/2018 / TRUE COPY /

¶22

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

¶23

TO THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE (PCR) CUM MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THANJAVUR.

¶24

GJM/PN/SAR-I-6.4.18-2P-2C

¶25

ORDER IN CMP(MD) No.9431 of 2017 IN CMA(MD) No.SR16569 of 2015 Date :03/04/2018

¶26

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

G.Muruganandam v. Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Muruganandam v. Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Managing Director, Vs Minor Sathish Babu

The Divisional Manager, Vs Deivanai

Tmt. E. Nirmala Devi Vs K. Sivasami

The Regional Manager Vs Kamatchi @Kamatchiyammal(Died)

Manisha(Minor) Vs Prabhakaran

M.Karunanidhi, Vs Maheswari