Allowed

G.Gnanaguru v. M/S United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Madras HC27 Oct 2022CMP/20303/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a Civil Miscellaneous Petition to correct typographical errors in a previous judgment. The errors misidentified the respondents entitled to specific shares of an award amount. The Registry was directed to issue a corrected order and decree.

What did the court decide?

Registry directed to correct sub-para 2 and 3 of para 13 in the original order, allocating Rs. 25,00,000 to the wife and Rs. 20,00,000 to each child, and issue a new decree.

G.Gnanaguru Vs M/S United India Insurance Co… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

C.M.P.No.20303 of 2021

¶2

C.M.P.No.20303 of 2021 in C.M.A.No.1852 of 2017

¶3

R. SUBRAMANIAN, J. and K.KUMARESH BABU, J.

¶4

(Order of the Court was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN,J. )

¶5

It is brought to our notice that some typographical errors have crept in in the judgment rendered by the Bench to which, one of us [Hon'ble Mr.Justice R.Subramaninan] was a party, in the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal on 26.09.2018. The 1^st and 2^nd respondents are children of the deceased, the 3^rd respondent is the wife of the deceased and the 4^th respondent is the mother of the deceased. While apportioning the award amount in clause 2 of para 13 instead of 3^rd respondent it has been typed as 1^st respondent and in clause 3 of para 13 instead of respondents 1 and 2 it has been typed as respondents 2 and 3. As a result, the wife of the deceased would be getting a lesser share while the son of the deceased will get the larger share. The petitioner has now sought for corrections.

¶6

2. Accepting the reasons assigned in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, this petition is allowed . The Registry is directed to correct the sub-para 2 of para 13 in the original order as follows:-

¶7

2. The wife of the deceased viz., the 3^rd respondent

¶8

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

¶9

1/3

¶10

C.M.P.No.20303 of 2021

¶11

would take Rs.25,00,000/- with proportionate interest and entire costs.

¶12

Sub-para 3 of para 13 in the original order to be corrected as follows:

¶13

3. The children of the deceased viz., respondents 1

¶14

and 2 will each take Rs.20,00,000/- with proportionate

¶15

interest.

¶16

3. The Registry is directed to issue corrected order copy and a new decree

¶17

as per the corrected order shall also be issued within a period one week from today.

¶18

(R.S.M., J.) (K.B., J.)

¶19

27.10.2022

¶20

dsa

¶21

Note : Issue corrected order copy by 03.11.2022.

¶22

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

¶23

2/3

¶24

C.M.P.No.20303 of 2021

¶25

R. SUBRAMANIAN, J. and K.KUMARESH BABU, J.

¶26

dsa

¶27

C.M.P.No.20303 of 2021 in C.M.A.No.1852 of 2017

¶28

27.10.2022

¶29

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

¶30

3/3

G.Gnanaguru v. M/S United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Gnanaguru v. M/S United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

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

The Member Secretary Vs M/S. Rankers Tennis Academy

Rajakumar Vs The Registrar

Rajakumar Vs The Registrar

Kanjamally Mudaliar Vs State of Tamilnadu

The General Manger Vs Sumathi Selvaraj

C.Nagarathinam Vs The Tamil Nadu State Level Scruitny Committee-Iii