Allowed

Minor Ganesh S/O. Late v. Shanmugam

Madras HC21 Jan 2019CRP/4229/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment allows a Civil Revision Petition challenging the rejection of an application to restore a main Motor Accidents Claims Petition. The Court held that since the delay was condoned, the restoration application must follow. The impugned order is set aside, and the main petition is restored to the Tribunal.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 23.02.2017 rejecting restoration is set aside; the main MCOP No. 38 of 2013 is restored to the Tribunal file.

Minor Ganesh S/O. Late Vs Shanmugam — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 21.01.2019

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

¶6

C.R.P. (NPD) No. 4229 of 2017
1. Minor Ganesh
2. Minor Gayathri
Petitioners 1 & 2 are Rep by Natural Guardian
Mother Manjula (third petitioner)
3. Manjula
4. Sadaiyammal ...Petitioners
Vs
1. Shanmugam
2. The Manager
United India Insurance Company Ltd,
No.146/N, Kumar Complex,
Thiruchengode. ...Respondents

¶7

Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order passed in I.A.No.414 of 2016 in M.C.O.P.No.38 of 2013, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Neyveli dated 23.02.2017 and allow the Civil Revision Petition.

¶8

For Petitioners : M/s.V.Rajesh Babu For Respondents : Mr.C.Girish Babu (for R.1) Mr.T.Ravichandran (for R.2)

¶9

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶10

¶11

ORDER

¶12

The order under challenge in the present revision is rejection of petitioner’s application seeking for restoration of main MCOP.

¶13

It is seen that earlier when the petitioner has filed an application

¶14

in I.A.No.1 of 2016 seeking to condone the delay of 436 days, in filing the main

¶15

MCOP, the same came to be allowed. The very purpose of allowing such an application filed, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, is only for the purpose of giving an opportunity to the petitioner herein to get along with the main MCOP. When the Court below had opted to condone the delay, what automatically follows is that the consequent application filed to restore the

¶16

main MCOP should also be allowed.

¶17

As such, I do not find any justification on the part of the Trial

¶18

Court in rejecting the petitioner’s application seeking to restore the main MCOP. Hence, the order dated 23.02.2017 passed in I.A. No.1/2016, in MCOP No.38 of 2013 is set aside. Consequently, the main petition in MCOP No.38 of 2013 shall stand restored to the file of the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal (Sub Court, Neyveli).

¶19

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶20

¶21

Accordingly, the present Civil Revision Petition stands allowed. No

¶22

costs.

¶23

21.01.2019
Index:Yes/No
Speaking Order: Yes/No
mrm

¶24

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶25

¶26

M.S.RAMESH.,J mrm

¶27

C.R.P. (NPD) No. 4229 of 2017

¶28

21.01.2019

¶29

http://www.judis.nic.in

Minor Ganesh S/O. Late v. Shanmugam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Minor Ganesh S/O. Late v. Shanmugam

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

Thulasimani Vs Maheswari

M.Mohamed Bathusha Vs D.Sivaprakasam

Vinod Vs Minor Dhakshan

R. Kabeerdas Vs P.R. Jayanthi

Senthil Kumar Vs Meerabai

M.D.Mukund Arvind Vs K.Bhoopathy