Partly allowed

Arulmigu Thandayuthapani Swami v. S. Muthukumar

Madras HC24 Nov 2020AS(MD)/13/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal suits were dismissed when the Insurance Company deposited the appropriate amount, leading the court to confirm the impugned decree and direct the deposit of interest.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgment and decree confirmed; Insurance Company directed to deposit interest; Temple granted time to deposit compensation share and entitled to recover advances.

Arulmigu Thandayuthapani Swami Vs S. Muthukumar — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

AS(MD). No.13 of 2012

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

(Civil Appellate Jurisdiction)

¶4

Tuesday, the Twenty Fourth day of November Two Thousand and Twenty

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.GOVINDARAJ

¶7

AS(MD)No.13 OF 2021

¶8

ARULMIGU THANDAYUTHAPANI SWAMI THIRUKOVIL THROUGH ITS JOINT COMMISSIONER / EXECUTIVE OFFICER PALANI ... Appellant / 2^nd Defendant Vs 1 S. MUTHUKUMAR S/O. SUBRAMANIAN, 37/6-C, SHANMUGA COLONY,, RAMAKRISHNA ROAD, SALEM TOWN, SALEM DISTRICT..

¶9

2 S. RAVIKUMAR S/O. SUBRAMANIAN, 37/6-C, SHANMUGA COLONY,, RAMAKRISHNA ROAD, SALEM TOWN, SALEM DISTRICT 1^st & 2^nd Respondents / Plaintiffs

¶10

3 M/S. ROPEWAY RESORTS (P) LTD. THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR A.K. CHINDHRA,, NO. 8, MULLAN STREET, KOLKATTA 700 020 4 M/S.NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER,, VIGNESWARA BUILDING, NEAR OVER BRIDGE,, PUDUKOTTAI ROAD, TRICHY 620 020 3^rd & 4^th Respondents / 3^rd & 4^th Defendants 5 HINDU RELIGIOUS & CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT BOARD, THROUGH ITS COMMISSIONER,, 119, MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD, NUNGAMBAKKAM,, CHENNAI - 600 034 5^th Respondent / 1^st Defendant

¶11

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

¶12

1/4

¶13

AS(MD). No.13 of 2012

¶14

AS(MD)No.56 OF 2021

¶15

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, LIMITED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER , VIGNESWARA BUILDING NEAR OVER BRIDGE 7 , PUDUKKOTTAI ROAD TIRUCHY - 620 020.. ... Appellant / 4^th Defendant

¶16

.Vs.

¶17

1 S. MUTHUKUMAR S/O. (LATE) SUBRAMANIAN, DOOR NO. 27/6C,, SHANMUGA COLONY, RAMKRISHNA ROAD, SALEM TOWN..

¶18

2 S. RAVIKUMAR S/O. (LATE) SUBRAMANIAN, DOOR NO. 27/6C,, SHANMUGA COLONY, RAMKRISHNA ROAD, SALEM TOWN ... 1^st and 2^nd Respondents / Plaintiffs

¶19

3 THE HINDU RELIGIOUS CHARITBALE, ENDOWMENT DEPARTMENT, BY ITS, COMMISSIONER, 119, MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD,, NUNGAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI - 600 034 ... 3^rd Respondents / 1^st Defendant

¶20

4 ARULMIGU DHANDAYUTHAPANI SWAMI THIRUKOIL, BY ITS JOINT COMMISSIONER /, EXECUTIVE OFFICER, PALANI - 624 601 .. 4^th Respondents / 2^nd Defendant

¶21

5 M/S. ROPEWAY RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED, THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR A.K., KINDHARA, NO. 8, MULLEN STREET, KOLKATA - 700 020 ... 5^th Respondent /3^rd Defendants

¶22

Prayer:-

¶23

These Appeal Suits are filed under Section 96 of the code of the Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 22.09.2011 made by the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Dindigul in O.S. No.107 of 2008.

¶24

DECREE:-

¶25

These Appeal Suits are coming on for hearing on this date, upon perusing the grounds of Appeal, the judgment and decree of the Court of First Instance and the material papers in the Suit and upon hearing the arguments of MR.K.SEKAR, Advocate for the Appellant in A.S.(MD) No.13 of 2012 and fourth respondent in A.S. (MD) No.56 of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2012 and of MR.S.SRINIVASA RAGHAVAN, Advocate for the fourth

¶26

2/4

¶27

AS(MD). No.13 of 2012

¶28

respondent in A.S.(MD) No.13 of 2012 and Advocate for Appellant in A.S.(MD) No.56 of 2012, and M/s.Vijayakumari Natarajan, Advocate for first and second respondent in both the Appeal Suits and Mr.R.Nanadakumar, Advocate for third respondent in A.S.(MD) No.13 of 2012 and Advocate for fifth respondent in A.S.(MD) No.56 of 2012 and of Mr.J.Gunaseelan Muthiah, Additional Government Pleader for fifth respondent in A.S.(MD) No.13 of 2012, and third respondent in A.S.(MD) No.56 that the Insurance Company has already remitted the appropriate amount to the respective suit, this Court while disposing off the Appeal Suits, doth order and decree as follows:-

¶29

That the Judgement and Decree, dated 22.09.2011 made by the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Dindigul, in O.S. No.107 of 2008, be and is hereby confirmed.

¶30

That the Insurance company be and hereby is directed to deposit interest at the rate of 9 % p.a. from the date of Suit till 02.07.2012, i.e. The date on which they deposited their share of compensation before trial court, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the Judgment.

¶31

That three months time is granted to the Temple for depositing the share amount of compensation to be deposited by M/s.Ropeway Resorts Pvt Ltd., along with accrued interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.

¶32

That the temple is entitled to recover the amount paid by them from the M/s.Ropeway Resorts Pvt Ltd.,

¶33

That there be no costs in these Appeals.

¶34

To The Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Dindigul

¶35

Copy to: The Section Officer, V.R. Section,

¶36

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 2 Copies

¶37

+2 ccs to M/s.S.Srinivasa Raghavan, Advocate in SR No.22800 & 22802 +1 cc to M/s.Vijayakumari Natarajan, Advocate in SR No.27789

¶38

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

¶39

3/4

¶40

AS(MD). No.13 of 2012

¶41

ORDER DATED : 24/11/2020

¶42

==========================

¶43

DECREE ==========================

¶44

AS(MD). No.13 of 2012 & AS(MD) No.56 of 2012

¶45

Nature of Decree:- Disposing the Appeal Suits preferred against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Dindigul in O.S. No.107 of 2008 etc., as stated within.

¶46

KMK(CO) TR(09.06.2021) 4P 7C

¶47

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

¶48

4/4

Arulmigu Thandayuthapani Swami v. S. Muthukumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arulmigu Thandayuthapani Swami v. S. Muthukumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S.Jeya Fruits Cold Storage Vs the Chairman

Sp.Shanmugam Vs The Inspector of Police

S.Dakshinamoorthy Vs The Sub Inspector of Police

Arulmigu Thandayuthapani Swami Vs v. Rajesh

Arulmigu Thandayuthapani Swami Vs S. Muthukumar

Arulmigu Thandayuthapani Swami Vs S. Muthukumar