Krishnasamy. Vs. P.Muralitharan and ors.

Krishnasamy vs P.Muralitharan and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Jul 06, 2012

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/928548

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/928548
Court: Chennai High Court
Judge: G.Rajasuria, J.
Decided On: Jul 06, 2012
Case Number: C.R.P.(NPD).No.440 of 2010 and M.P.No.1 of 2011
Subject: Constitution

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Constitution

Key legal issue: Constitution
Acts & sections: Constitution of India - Articles 227

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Krishnasamy

Advocate Mr.S.Kaithamalai Kumaran, Adv.

Respondent

P.Muralitharan and ors.

Advocate Mr.J.Chandran, Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Constitution of India - Articles 227

Excerpt

civil revision petition filed under article 227 of the constitution of india to set aside the fair and final order dated 29.12.2009 in i.a.no.717 of 2009 in mcop no.251 of 2005 on the file of the principal sub court, erode.order1. animadverting upon the order dated 29.12.2009 passed in i.a.no.717 of 2009 in mcop no.251 of 2005, by the learned principal subordinate judge, erode, this civil revision petition is focussed.2. a thumbnail sketch of the germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this revision petition would run thus:the motor accidents claims tribunal, dismissed i.a.no.717 of 2009 for withdrawal of the award amount of rs.1,34,171/-, on the main ground that the deposit was made for three years and it was pre matured to release the amount. whereas the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that his client is in need of the amount for his medical treatment.3. at this juncture, i would like to call up rules 18, 19 and 20 of the tamil nadu motor vehicles accidents claims tribunal rules 1989.4. the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that his client is literate only and he is need of money. be that as it may, the amount was deposited as on 08.09.2009 and now we are in july 2012. by this time, almost three years also is going to expire. in such a case, i do not think that there could be any objection to release the money. hence in these circumstances, the award amount due payable to the petitioner, shall be paid to him.in the result, this civil revision petition stands allowed. no costs.

Full Judgment

Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the fair and final order dated 29.12.2009 in I.A.No.717 of 2009 in MCOP No.251 of 2005 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Erode.

ORDER

1. Animadverting upon the order dated 29.12.2009 passed in I.A.No.717 of 2009 in MCOP No.251 of 2005, by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Erode, this civil revision petition is focussed.

2. A thumbnail sketch of the germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this revision petition would run thus:

The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, dismissed I.A.No.717 of 2009 for withdrawal of the Award amount of Rs.1,34,171/-, on the main ground that the deposit was made for three years and it was pre matured to release the amount. Whereas the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that his client is in need of the amount for his medical treatment.

3. At this juncture, I would like to call up Rules 18, 19 and 20 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal Rules 1989.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that his client is literate only and he is need of money. Be that as it may, the amount was deposited as on 08.09.2009 and now we are in July 2012. By this time, almost three years also is going to expire. In such a case, I do not think that there could be any objection to release the money. Hence in these circumstances, the Award amount due payable to the petitioner, shall be paid to him.

In the result, this civil revision petition stands allowed. No costs.

Same Court & Year Chennai · 2012 Same Parties Krishnasamy vs P.Muralitharan and ors. Same Subject Constitution Same Judge G.Rajasuria, J. Acts & Sections Constitution of India - Articles 227