Disposed

The Managing Director v. P.Paranichelvam

Madras HC16 Jul 2021CRP/242/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This civil revision petition sought to set aside execution proceedings where the claim petition was allowed against the petitioner. The High Court directed the lower court to dispose of the execution petition in accordance with the petitioner's submitted memo.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Special Sub Judge to dispose of the execution petition based on the petitioner's memo to dismiss it within eight weeks.

The Managing Director Vs P.Paranichelvam — Execution and Attachment | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

CRP (NPD) No.242 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 16.07.2021

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

C.R.P (NPD) No.242 of 2018
and
C.M.P.No.1389 of 2018
The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation,
Villupuram Limited,
Villupuram. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. P.Paranichelvam
2. K.Venkateswaran
3. The Branch Manager,
Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd.,
Branch Office, 3 rd Floor,
No.408, Perundurai Road,
Erode – 11. ... Respondents

¶7

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the proceedings of the Special Sub Judge (M.A.C.T) Krishnagiri in E.P.No.88 of 2017 in M.C.O.P.No.3369 of 2013 in so far as the petitioner herein is concerned by allowing the above Civil Revision Petition.

¶8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶9

1/4

¶10

CRP (NPD) No.242 of 2018

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sairaman

¶12

For Respondents : Mr.C.Prabakaran (for R-1) : Not Ready in Notice (No Appearance) for R-2 : Notice Served (No Appearance) (for R-3)

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

This Civil Revision Petition is filed as against the proceedings in

¶15

E.P.No.88 of 2017 in M.C.O.P.No.3369 of 2013 on the file of the learned

¶16

Special Sub Judge (M.A.C.T) Krishnagiri.

¶17

The petitioner/Transport Corporation is the first respondent in the

¶18

claim petition filed by the first respondent herein. The claim petition was allowed directing the petitioner and the third respondent herein to pay the compensation, as they are jointly and severally liable to pay the total

¶19

compensation of Rs.3,22,200/- to the first respondent herein. Accordingly, the petitioner deposited 50% of the award amount and filed a memo to

¶20

dismiss the Execution Petition.

¶21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶22

2/4

¶23

CRP (NPD) No.242 of 2018

¶24

Considering the above, the Court below is directed to dispose of

¶25

the Execution Petition in E.P.No.88 of 2017 as per the memo filed by the petitioner on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if not already

¶26

disposed of.

¶27

With the above direction, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed
of. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.
16.07.2021
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Index : Yes/No
kv
To
1. The Special Sub Judge (M.A.C.T), Krishnagiri.

¶28

The Section Officer,
V.R. Section, High Court of Madras.

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶30

3/4

¶31

CRP (NPD) No.242 of 2018

¶32

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.

¶33

¶34

C.R.P (NPD) No.242 of 2018

¶35

16.07.2021

¶36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶37

4/4

The Managing Director v. P.Paranichelvam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Managing Director v. P.Paranichelvam

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

V.Ramamurthy Vs K.Mani

Balasubramaniam Vs Selvi

S.Jahaber Kassim Vs Sukhversha

A.H.Mohamed Farook Vs Mohammed Sabeer

M/S.Irbaz Shoe Company Chennai Vs M/S.Textil Tapes Coporation Chennai

Balasubramaniam Vs Arokiyasamy